IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY 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 : 19599 of 2008 Between: M/s Big Apple Manufacturing Company, "Bigappale Arcade", # 1- 8-167 to 179 , S.D.Road, Secunderabad, Rep by its Proprietor Mr. Maniklala Agarwal. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Union of India, Rep by its Secretary, Dept of Economic Afiars, ministry of Finance, New Delhi. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, commercial Taxes Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Commercial Tax officer, Begumpet Circle, Hyderabd. 4 The Dy.Commissioner, commercial Taxes, Pujagutta Division, Hyderabad. 5 The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Near Gandhi bhavan, Op:Exhibition Grounds, Nampally to Mozamjahi Market, Hyderabad. 6 The Commissioner of Customs-II, Shulk Bhavan, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 7 The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container's Depot,Sanatnagar, 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 to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, to set aside the impugned Proceedings in TIN No.28450115092 dt. 22.11.2007 on the file of Respondent No.3 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Notification No.19/2006-customs dt. 1.3.2006 and consequently direct the respondents to give credit to the amounts paid by the Peititoner Counter Vail Duty (CVD) 4% on all imported goods in lieu of State Taxes/VAT for the period from 1.9.2006 to 31.3.2007, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAJ KUMAR RUDRA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the order dated 22-11-2007 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Begumpet Circle, Hyderabad, this petition has been filed. In pursuance of the notice issued by this Court, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner can very well challenge the validity of the said order before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Punjagutta, Hyderabad, and as the petitioner has not exhausted the equally efficacious alternative remedy available to him at law, this petition should not be entertained. Upon hearing the learned Advocates and looking to the fact that equally efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available to the petitioner, we do not entertain this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition stands rejected with no order as to costs. ___________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 21st January, 2009 CVRK/GRR