IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 16445 of 1998 Between: M/s. Thakur V.S. Bidi Works, Rep. by its Authorised Representative, Sri Laxmikanth Madnurkar. Beedi Manufacturers, Sircilla, Karimnagar District, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Parliamentary Affairs, New Delhi. 2 The Govt. of India, Rep. by under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. 3 The Commissioner of Central Excise, Central Excise Buildings, Basheerbagh, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or direction declaring; (a) that Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1994 (Central Act) as amended by Finance Act, 1997 in so far as it seeks to levy service tax on amounts paid to Goods Transport Operators for carriage of goods by road as ultravires Entry 56 of List-II of the VII Schedule to Constitution of India and strike down the same; or in the alternative. (b) that the provisions of Chapter-V of Finance Act, 1994 as amended by Finance Act, 1997 are ambiguous and unworkable since Section 68(1-A) in Chapter-V being a machinery provision cannot travel beyond the charging Section 66(3); (c) that in any event Section 67(1) which values the taxable service as gross amount paid to Goods Transport Operators excluding only insurance charges without excluding value of goods such as fuel consumed for transportation is unreasonable and unconstitutional, and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive and the same has become infructuous. Recording the same, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 24.06.2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies