IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 4791 of 2009 Between: M/s. B.J. Services Company Middle East Limited Rep. by its Country Controller, Mr. Sunil Tripathi Plot No.5, R & D Yard, ADB Road, Opp. Kakinada Sea Port, Kakinada, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Oficer, Kakinada Circle Kakinada, East Godavari Dist. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Visakhapatnam. 3 The Joint Commissioner (CT), Legal, Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Government of Andhra Pradesh, 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 an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in revising the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4-12-2007 through the impugned proceedings dated 20-01-2009 in CCT's Ref.No.LV(3)/725/2008 on untenable grounds and on the grounds which were declared as invalid by the Hon'ble Apex Court as illegal, arbitrary and highhanded, without authority of law and set aside the same and also declare that the disputed turnover is not taxable since the contracts entered by the petitioner with the contractees being M/s. Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation and M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd., are in the nature of service and in alternative declare that no portion of the disputed turnover is taxable since situs of sale is not in Andhra Pradesh and the alleged operating charges of tools and equipment are in the course of import and exempt under Section 5(2) of the CST Act. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: G.P. FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. Service of notice is waived by Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned Special Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. At the request of the learned Advocates, the petition is finally heard today. 3. The only grievance, which has been made in the petition, is with regard to non-consideration of judgments cited by the petitioner before respondent No.3 in the impugned order. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that though certain judgments were cited before respondent No.3, he did not refer to any of the judgments and did not consider the same. It has been, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is bad in law because respondent No.3 was bound to consider the judgments, which had been cited before him. 5. In reply to the afore-stated submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that the judgments cited by the petitioner were not relevant, as the facts of the case were absolutely different. He has, however, clarified that on behalf of the petitioner certain judgments had been cited before respondent No.3. 6. Upon hearing the learned Advocates, we are of the view that respondent No.3 ought to have referred to the judgments cited before him. Even if the judgments were not relevant, respondent No.3 ought to have stated the said fact in the order passed by him. In our opinion, it was not proper on the part of respondent No.3 to brush aside the judgments which had been cited before him. 7. For the afore-stated reasons, we quash and set aside the impugned order and direct respondent No.3 to consider the matter afresh after considering the judgments, which had been cited on behalf of the petitioner. 8. Learned Advocates have agreed that the learned Advocate for the petitioner shall appear before respondent No.3 on 30.3.2009 at 11.00 a.m., so that the judgments which had been cited can be referred to at the time of hearing and the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner can show how the said judgments are relevant. It is clarified that no separate notice shall be given to the petitioner with regard to the date of personal hearing as the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has waived service of notice. 9. As a result, the petition is allowed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 24th March, 2009 bnr