IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH 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 : 11993 of 2008 Between: M/s.Myneni Constructions & Contractors, D.No.48-9-13 Vishnu Nagar,Gunadala, Vijayawada,Krishna District Rep. by its Managing partner M.narayana Rao ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Finance (Works & Projects) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The Executive Engineer (P.R), Vijayawada Krishna District 3 The Pay and Accounts Officer (W&P), Vijayawada Krishna District 4 The Commercial Tax Officer, Vijayawada Krishna District .....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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that i. the Memo No.602/F8(1)/.2006 dated 14.3.2007 issued by the 1st respondent is arbitrary, illegal, invalid, contrary to the provisions of the AP Value Added Tax Act, Rules made there under G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 29.7.2005 and 141 dated 27.7.2006 and unsustainable 2. The petitioner is entitled for addition of VAT component of 4% on the entire value of work done at the time of payment of each bill in terms of the provisions of the G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 29.7.2005 141 dated 27.7.2006 and section 22(3) of the AP VAT Act 3. Declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in adding only 1.4.% at the time of payment of each bill i.e. lesser that 4% as arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the provisions of the AP Value Added Tax and the Government orders in force as well as the terms of the agreement and 4. Consequently direct the respondents to pay the difference 2.6% amount on the total value of the work relating the Agreement Nos.13,16&17 of 2008-09 dated 16.4.2008 to the petitioner by adding the same to the bills payable to the petitioner and 5. to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.GIRISH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Heard both the sides. At their request, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. At the time of hearing, learned counsel on either side submitted that the issue raised in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.484 of 2008 dated 18.01.2008. However, learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Tax submitted that though the petitioner states that he has paid 4% tax on the entire work done, it has to be ascertained while processing the final bill. Following the ratio laid down in the above referred judgment, the Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed with a direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 not to remit any further amount to the 2nd respondent in respect of deductions already made pursuant to the memo dated 14.03.2007 of the first respondent, while processing the final bill, however, subject to the payment of 4% which is stated to have been made by the petitioner. It is needless to mention that, as agreed by the counsel on either side, the balance of 2.6% has to be added by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the bills. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. JUNE 12, 2008 Copy in three days. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}