IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 4414 of 2009 Between: M/s. MPR REFRACTORIES LTD., (Formerly M/s. Kollur Refractories (P) Ltd., IDA Bollarum, with registered Office at Flat NO. 303 Everest Block, Aditya Enclave, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, Rep. byu its Financial Manager, K. Srinivasa Rao S/o. Late K. Krishna Rao, 54 yrs ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer Medak, Medak District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the Respondent namely the Commercial Tax Officer, Medak in not giving effect to the orders of the appellate authority dt. 8-11-2000 in Appeal No. N/22/98-99 as enshrined in Rule 35 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 read with Section 19 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 despite the representations of the Petitioner dt. 22-11-2008 and 4-2-2009 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of the mandate envisaged in Rule 35 of the APGST Rules read with Section 19 of the APGST Act 57 and consequently forbear the Respondent from seeking to recover any amount of tax pursuant to the assessment order which was set aside in the appeal mentioned above without giving effect to the appeal order and grant such other relief or reliefs as are deemed to be fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.V.J.K.KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: Sri K. Raji Reddy, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by an order dated 31-03-1998, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad. According to the petitioner, there was a dispute with regard to tax on certain turn over and the said appeal was ultimately allowed by an order dated 08-11-2000. As the appeal was allowed, the order passed in the appeal was given effect to by an order dated 12-12-2008 by the Commercial Tax Officer, Medak. The petitioner has been aggrieved by the order dated 12-12-2008 whereby effect was given to the order passed in the appeal by the appellate authority. It is the case of the petitioner that after the petitioner had succeeded in the appeal, a fresh order ought to have been passed by the Commercial Tax Officer as required under Rule 35 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘the Rules’). We have heard the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. We do not accept the submission made by the learned advocate for the petitioner to the effect that fresh order was required to be passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Medak in pursuance of order dated 08- 11-2000 passed by the appellate authority. Rule 35 of the Rules reads as under: “The order passed on appeal or revision shall be given effect to by the assessing authority who shall refund any excess tax or fee found to have been collected and shall have power to collect any tax or fee which is found to be due, in the manner as if it were a tax assessed by himself.” Upon perusal of the aforestated Rule, it is very clear that the order passed in appeal or revision is to be given effect to by the assessing authority. The said Rule does not say that a fresh assessment order should be passed, as argued by the learned advocate for the petitioner. In our opinion, by the impugned order dated 12-12-2008 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, effect has been given to the order passed by the appellate authority. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner is not disputing the fact that the order passed in the appeal has been given effect to by virtue of the impugned order dated 12-12-2008, but his submission is that a fresh order should have been passed. Looking to the provision of the Rule, it is very clear that the order passed in appeal or revision is to be given effect to by the assessing officer and in our opinion, by virtue of order dated 12-12-2008, the assessing officer i.e., the Commercial Tax Officer has given effect to the order passed by the appellate authority and, therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order is bad, as submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner or for any other reason. For the aforestated reasons, we do not find any substance in the petition. The petition is rejected. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 1st June, 2009. ks