IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH 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 : 13152 of 2008 Between: T. Hari Prasad S/o. T.S. Ramanaiah H.No.7-15/92, New Raghavendra Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad-76. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Finance & Planning (Works & Projects) Department at Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent Engineer (R&B), Rural Circle at Balkampet, Hyderabad. 3 The Executive Engineer (R&B), City Roads Division at Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 4 The Executive Engineer (R&B), Roads Division at Goshamahal, Hyderabad. 5 The Executive Engineer (R&B), N.H. Division, Hyderabad. 6 The Pay and Accounts Officer, Ranga Reddy District, Near Gandhi Bhavan at Nampally, Hyderabad. 7 The Pay and Accounts Officer, (Projects), Near Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad. 8 The Commercial Tax Officer, Nacharam Circle, Hyderabad. .....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 in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs, order or direction 1) Declaring the Memo.No. 602/F8(1)/2006, dt. 14.3.2007 issued by the first respondent is arbitrary, illegal, invalid contrary to the provisions of the A.P.Value Added Tax Act, Rules made there under, G.O.Ms.Nos. 11, dt. 29.7.2005 and G.O.Ms.No. 141, dt. 27.7.2006 and unsustainable. 2) The Petitioner is entitled for addition of VAT component of 4% on the entire value or work done at the time of payment of each bill in terms of the provisions of G.O.Ms.No. 11, dt. 29.7.2005, G.O.Ms.No.141, dt.27.7.2006 and Section 22(3) of the A.P.VAT Act. 3) Declaring the action of the Respondents No.2 to 6 in adding only 1.4% at the time of payment of bill than 4% in respect of some works as arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.Value Added Tax and the Government orders in force as well as the terms of the Agreement, and 4) Consequently direct the respondent No.2 to 6 to pay the difference 2.6% amount on the total value of the works, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) This writ petition is filed seeking writ of Mandamus declaring that the Memo No.602/F8(1)/2006, dated 14-3- 2007 issued by the 1st respondent has no application to the petitioner, who opted for payment of tax under composition scheme under the provisions of A.P. Value Added Tax Act, that the petitioner is entitled for addition of VAT component of 4% on the entire work done and deduction at the time of payment of each bill in terms of the provisions of agreement read with G.O. 141, dated 27- 7-2006 and Section 22(3) of the A.P. VAT Act and to declare the action of the respondents 2 to 6 in adding only 1.4% at the time of payment of the bill i.e. lesser than 4% and issuing TCS Certificate to the said amount as illegal and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Value Added Tax and Government orders in force as well as the terms of the agreement and consequently to direct the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 to pay the difference amount between 2.6% on the total value of the works. The petitioner company is a registered Dealer under the APGST Act - now under A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and the petitioner is an assessee on the rolls of the 8th respondent. The petitioner is carrying on the business in execution of ‘Work Contracts’. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already paid 1.4% on total value to the 8th respondent and hence, the petitioner is entitled for refund of 4% on total value from the respondent Nos. 2 to 6. But, however, the learned Government Pleader and also the learned counsel for the petitioner further submit that the balance of 1.4% has already been paid and he is entitled for refund from the respondent Nos. 2 to 6. The learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner has paid 4% in total. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes and the learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also recording the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is allowed. However, there shall be a direction to the respondents 2 to 6 not to remit any further amount to the 8th respondent in respect of the deductions already made pursuant to the Memo dated 14-3-2007 of the 1st respondent, while processing the final bill. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. s___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. June 24, 2008 MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}