IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 10130 of 2006 Between: Navata Road Transport, Rep.by its Partner P. Ramesh Kumar, R/o. Saroornagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Profession Tax Officer(Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Office of Commercial Tax Officer, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Profession Tax Officer(Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-II) Samarangamchowk, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring Explanation to the definition of the "Person" as well as Explanation-I to the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employment Act, 1987 as amended in 1996 as unreasonable, unconstitutional and ultra vires the Article 276(2) of the Constitution of India and accordingly strike them down and further declare that the petitioner is liable to pay profession tax at the rate of Rs.2,500/-per annum under item 20 of First Schedule irrespective of number of branches or offices it has in the state of Andhara Pradesh and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.RAVI KONDAVEETI Counsel for the Respondents: MR K. RAJI REDDY SPL SC FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y. SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION No.10130 OF 2006 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao) Heard Sri K. Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K. Raji Reddy, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax appearing on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel on either side submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by a decision of the Apex Court in Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs. State of A.P. and others[1]. In view of the same, this writ petition is also liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO _____________________ JUSTICE C.Y. SOMAYAJULU 17th April, 2008. IBL To 1 The Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Profession Tax Officer(Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Office of Commercial Tax Officer, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Profession Tax Officer(Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-II) Samarangamchowk, Vijayawada. 4 Two CD Copies [1] (2008) 12 VST 459 (SC)