THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12616 of 2004 Dated:04.07.2011 Between: Rajarajeswara Parboiled Rice Industries & Exports Ltd. … Petitio And The Commercial Tax Officer, Kodad Circle, Mallika Towers, Vijayawada Road, Kodad (V) & (M), Nalgonda District. ... Respond THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12616 of 2004 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner is aggrieved by the assessment of Rural Developm Cess (RDS) under the Andhra Pradesh Rural Development Cess Act, 19 read with Rule 17(5-A) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 19 for the year 2001-2002. The said order is assailed mainly on the ground the objections submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the show cause no issued by the respondent were not properly considered and the respondent not take into consideration the subsidy entitlement of the petitioner in respec the rice exported to other states. The fact of the matter is not much in dispute. The petitioner is a trader miller of rice. They are dealers under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Act, 1957, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In discharge of t obligations under law they are required to supply paddy to Food Corporatio India (FCI) and subject to that they are entitled to export parboiled rice to o states. The accounts of the petitioner were audited. In consequence ther the show cause notice dated 24.01.2003 was issued proposing to levy amount of Rs.21,18,589/- towards RDS on the value of the paddy supplie FCI taking the conversion value of the rice. The petitioner submitted objecti on 20.05.2003 claiming subsidy in so far as RDS component is concerned w reference to parboiled rice. By the impugned order, the respondent undert the assessment only with reference to the total quantity of rice supplied to duly considering 67% as conversion ratio of paddy into rice. We have considered the submissions made by the Counsel for petitioner who reiterated the affidavit averments and the submissions made the Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes. There is no dispute that the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of R in so far as rice supplied to FCI. Such reimbursement shall be made by the either to the dealer who has paid the RDS to the Government or by Government itself as the case may be. There is also no dispute that for relevant assessment year i.e., 2001-2002 the petitioner was entitled to claim entire RDS on the paddy/rice supplied to FCI from them. This does however, absolve the dealer from paying the RDS component initially on total value of the paddy supplied. This was precisely the subject of assessm impugned in this writ petition. If the petitioner has not already claim reimbursement of the RDS at 5% paid to the Government on the value of paddy/rice supplied to FCI it is open to them to approach the FCI making suc claim in accordance with the relevant rules. In so far as the assessmen concerned, we do not find any grave error warranting interference. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed subject to the ab observations. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ (V.V.S. RAO ____________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN 04.07.2011 vs