IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY 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 : 9814 of 2008 Between: Noori Travels, #6-2-338, Noori Towers, Hill Colony, Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500 004, Rep. by its partner Shri Nabeel Husain. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Through Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (CT-II) Department, Hyderabad. 2 Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad. 3 Commercial Tax Officer, Khairatabad Circle, Hyderabad. 4 The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Hyderabad-II Commissionerate, 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 issue a WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION stating that AP VAT is not leviable on a service on which service tax is rightly paid and particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the notice dated 18-04-2008 issued under Rule 25(5) of AP VAT Rules, 2005 by the Ld., Commercial Tax Officer, Khairatabad, Hyderabad proposing to levy VAT on the Service of rent-a-cab provided by the Petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: LAKSHMI KUMARAN & SRIDHARAN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY 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 : 9880 of 2008 Between: Noori Travels, # 6-2-338, Noori Towers Hill Colony, Khairatabad, Hyderabad-500004 rep. by its Partner Shri Nabeel Hussain ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Through Principal Secretary to Government Revenue (CT-II) Department, Hyderabad. 2 Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad. 3 Commercial Tax Officer, Khairatabad circle, Hyderabad. 4 The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad-II Commissionerate, 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 issue a writ, order or direction stating that AP VAT is not leviable on a service on which service tax is rightly paid and particularly one in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the notice dated 18.04.2008 issued under Rule 25(5) of AP VAT Rules, 2005 by the Ld. Commercial Tax Officer, Khairatabad, Hyderabad proposing to levy VAT on the service of rent-a-cab provided by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: LAKSHMI KUMARAN & SRIDHARAN Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} COMMON ORDER (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Parkash Rao): Heard Sri Sivadas, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, and Sri A.V. Krishna Koundinya, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents, and their request the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal at this stage. 2. In both these writ petitions the petitioner seeks to assail the notices dated 18-04-2008 purported to have been issued under the provisions under sub-section (8) of Section 4 of A.P.V.A.T. Act, 2005, by the 3rd respondent-Commercial Tax Officer, Khairatabad Circle, Hyderabad, calling upon the petitioner to file written objections, if any, to the proposed tax levied on the ground that the service of a rent-a-cab is liable to VAT under the category of transfer of right to use goods. 3. The order impugned is a mere notice. Without responding to the notice by filing the objections, if any, the petitioner has directly approached before this Court. Therefore, the approach of the petitioner is a premature one. However, it is always open for the petitioner to file objections, if any, to the notices issued to them before the 3rd respondent and it is for the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, we do not see any reason to grant any relief to the petitioner. 4. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. However, the time for a period of two weeks from today is granted to the petitioner to file objections to the notice impugned herein. On filing such objections, it is needless to observe that it is for the authorities concerned to consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. No costs. _______________________ JUSTICE B.PRAKASHRAO ________________________ May 2, 2008 JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU Kvr