THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION Nos. 21623 and 21736 of 2008 Dated: 14-09-2011 Between M/s Sponge Iron India Limited, rep. by it Deputy Manager-Accounts Sri M.A.Jilani …Petitioner And Assistant Commissioner (CT)(LTU), Warangal Division, Warangal …Respondents Common Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) These writ petitions are by the same petitioner, a Government of India undertaking and a manufacturer of sponge iron, with its factory located at Palvoncha, Khammam District and an assessee registered on the rolls of the 1st respondent. Order of assessment in form VAT 305, dated 19-2-2008 and restricting the Sales Tax relief on the opening stock of Coal as on 01- 04-2005, in Form VAT 120 dated 27-1-2008 were passed by the 1st respondent in respect of the petitioner for different assessment periods. In W.P.No. 21623 of 2008, order of assessment was passed for the tax period April, 2005 to December, 2006 and in W.P.No. 21736 of 2008 for the period from September, 2005 to January, 2006. These orders are assailed on several grounds including that provisions of Section 13 (4) of the AP VAT Act, 2005 and Rule 20(2)(h) of the AP VAT Rules, 2005 are unconstitutional for excessive delegation of Rule Making power and for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of input tax credit on the purchase of coal, with effect from 1-4- 2005 onwards. In Asian Peroxides Limited, Sullurpet and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (APHC)[1], a learned Division Bench of this Court considered the validity of the provisions assailed herein and upheld the validity of Section 13 (4) of the Act and Rule 20(2)(h) of the Rules. However, the retrospective operation of Rule 20(2)(h), notified on 31-12-2005 by the Gazette Notification issued in G.O.Ms.No. 2201 dated 29-12-2005, whereby Rule 20(2)(h) was amended with retrospective effect from 1-4-2005 was struck down in so far as the retrospective operation is concerned. Having regard to the tax periods for which the impugned assessment orders herein were passed, Rule 20(2)(h) for a part of the period is inoperable i.e., for the period during 1-4-2005 to 31-12-2005, in view of the decision of this Court in Asian Peroxides (supra). For the aforesaid reasons, the orders passed by the 1st respondent and impugned in the two writ petitions are set aside and the matters remanded to the respective authorities for passing fresh orders, in accordance with the law declared in Asian Peroxides (supra) The writ petitions are allowed. There shall however be no order as to costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 14th September, 2011 ______________________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J GRR [1] 52 APSTJ 239