IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 8181 of 2008 Between: M/s. S.S. Cellular, Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. Maddu Anand Sai, Door No. 16/1, V.K. Street, Nellore-1 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Commercial Tax) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of A.P. Gruha Kalpta Buildings, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 Commercial Tax Officer, Circle-II Nellore. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a writ order or direction one more particularly in the nature of a "Writ of Mandamus " declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in demanding sales Tax of Rs.55,350/- for the assessment year 2001-2002 on the basis of the orders made in G.I.No. 13327/2001-2002 dt. 16-12-2003 from the petitioner under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 or A.P. Value Added Tax, 2005 on the Airtel Prepaid Cards and recharge coupons of M/s. Bharti Tele-Ventures Limited, distributed by the petitioners on commission basis as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional apart from being contrary to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in reported in (2006) 3 SCC1 (BSNLVS UOI) and consequently direct the respondents not to raise any demand of Sales Tax from the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2001-2002 for the sale of SIM Cards and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.NIRANJAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus, declaring action of the third respondent in demanding sales tax of Rs.55,350/- for the assessment year 2001-2002 on the basis of the order dated 16.12.2003 under VAT Act, on the sale of Airtel Prepaid Cards and recharge coupons of M/s. Bharti Tele- Ventures Limited as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and consequently to direct the respondents not to raise any demand of sales tax from the petitioner for the assessment year 2001-2002 for the sale of SIM Cards, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a proprietary concern engaged in the business of SIM Cards of Airtel, as a distributor. The petitioner is a distributor of M/s.Bharti Tele-Ventures Limited, which provides Cellular Mobile Services under the brand name of Airtel and Commission is paid to the petitioner by the said Company. While so, the Assistant Commissioner, CT-II, Enforcement Wing, Hyderabad, issued show cause notice as to why sales tax shall not be collected, for the years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, which was assailed by the petitioner and this Court stayed all further proceedings. The said writ petitions were subsequently transferred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court to be heard along with other matters. While so, the third respondent issued notice to the petitioner directing to show cause as to why the turnover of the sales of SIM Cards should not be included for the purpose of computing the tax payable by the petitioner for the year 2001-2002.The petitioner submitted objections dated 23.4.2003, but without considering the said same, the third respondent passed final order dated 16.12.2003 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.55,350/- towards the turnover tax, which was appealed by the petitioner before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner(CT), Guntur. But the said appeal was dismissed on 22.3.2004. Thereafter, the third respondent issued notice dated 7.12.2007 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.55,350/- towards the sales tax for the year 2001-2002 and the petitioner submitted reply on 13.12.007 and once again the third respondent issued notice dated 4.3.2008, but inspite of submitting reply dated 8.4.2008, the third respondent resorted to take coercive steps for recovery of the amount due. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for the respondents. We have gone through the record. Though several contentions are sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered view that the writ petition deserves dismissal on laches. Admittedly, the demand notice dates back to 16.12.2003 and the petitioner has chosen to assail the same by way of this writ petition nearly after five years. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the writ petition does not merit consideration. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought liberty to avail the remedies that are open to the petitioner under law. Accordingly, liberty is granted. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. June 20, 2008 MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}