IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.14026 of 2009 Between: M/s. Siddhardha Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 47-15-13, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam, Represented by its Managing Director, Sri N. Surendra Babu. ...Petitioner And 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Finance (Works & Projects) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The Principal Secretary, Transport (R&B) (R-3) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 3. The Chief Engineer (R&B), Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad. 4. The Superintending Engineer (R&B), Rural Circle, Balakampet, Hyderabad. 5. The Superintending Engineer (R&B), Medak Circle, HQ at Sangareddy, Medak District. 6. The Executive Engineer (R&B), Radial Roads, Goshamahal, Hyderabad. 7. The Executive Engineer (R&B), Roads Division, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 8. The Executive Engineer (R&B), Sangareddy Division, Sangareddy, Medak District. 9. The Pay and Accounts Officer, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 10.The Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer, Medak, Medak District. 11.The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (LTU), Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ...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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction:- (a) declaring the action of the respondent contractee department authorities in not adding/paying the amount of 4% towards VAT Component on the entire value of the contract as arbitrary, illegal, violative of the provisions of the VAT Act, G.O.Ms. and Memo dated 17.12.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent; (b) declare the action of the respondent contractee department authorities in not adopting the formula contemplated under the A.P. VAT Act as well as in G.O.Ms.No. 11, dated 29.7.2005 for calculation o the correct amount of VAT payable as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Act; and (c) consequently direct the respondents contractee department authorities to calculate the VAT component @ 4% by applying the formula on the entire value of the contract including price adjustment, tender premium, extra items of work etc., and pay the difference amount over and above the amount for which certificates have already been issued to the petitioner in the interest of justice. Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P. Girish Kumar Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 9 & 10 : Government Pleader for Finance & Planning Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 8 : Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings Counsel for respondent No.11 : Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, C.J.) 1) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by the learned Government Pleaders appearing for the respondent authorities. 2) At the request of the learned Advocates, the petition is taken up for final hearing today. 3) The petitioner is a contractor, who had entered into a contract with Roads & Buildings Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. It is an admitted fact that 4% of Value Added Tax (VAT) had been deducted by the department from the amount payable to the petitioner, but, in fact, the department has given credit to the petitioner to the tune of only 1.4%. So, it is an admitted fact that 2.6% of the amount of tax is to be paid by respondent authorities to the petitioner herein. 4) The learned Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings Department has fairly submitted that respondent Nos.6 to 8 shall do the needful for making payment of the amount payable to the petitioner, if it makes an application to that effect. 5) In the circumstances, the petitioner shall, after calculating the amount payable to it, submit an application to respondent Nos.6 to 8, and on receipt of such application, respondent Nos.6 to 8 shall do the needful for making payment of 2.6% of the amount, of which no credit has been given so far, to the petitioner. 6) With the above direction, the petition stands disposed of as allowed. 7) Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 22nd July, 2009 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. ….REGISTRAR To 1. The Principal Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Finance (Works & Projects) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2.The Principal Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Transport (R&B) (R-3) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 3. The Chief Engineer (R&B), Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad. 4. The Superintending Engineer (R&B), Rural Circle, Balakampet, Hyderabad. 5. The Superintending Engineer (R&B), Medak Circle, Headquarters at Sangareddy, Medak District. 6. The Executive Engineer (R&B), Radial Roads, Goshamahal, Hyderabad. 7. The Executive Engineer (R&B), Roads Division, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 8. The Executive Engineer (R&B), Sangareddy Division, Sangareddy, Medak District. 9. The Pay and Accounts Officer, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 10.The Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer, Medak, Medak District. 11.The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (LTU), Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 12. Two copies to the Govt. Pleader for Finance & Planning, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 13. Two copies to the Govt. Pleader for Roads & Buildings, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 14. Two copies to the Govt. Pleader for Commercial Taxes, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 15. Two C.D. copies. ARS