IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 6006 OF 2010 Between: M/s. Sindhu Travles, Rep. by N.Sasikar ..... PETITIONER AND The Transport Commissioner, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) The petitioner questions action of the second respondent in not refunding or adjusting the tax of Rs.56,700/- collected in respect of the vehicle bearing No. AP-09/Y-0599 as illegal and arbitrary and to consequently direct the respondents either to refund the said sum or adjust the same towards the tax payable for the next quarter, in respect of the said vehicle. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the order dated 30.11.2007 passed by a Division Bench of this court in WP No.21008 of 2006 and Batch, quashing GO Ms. No. Transport, Roads and Buildings (Tr.I) Department dated 27.9.2006, the petitioner made an application dated 9.12.2009 to refund the excess amount paid by him, but the second respondent has neither refunded the amount nor has adjusted the same observing that the petitioner herein has neither filed above writ petition challenging the notification nor has submitted original check reports. The learned Government Pleader while adopting the same line of argument banks upon instruction No.(3) of the Circular Memo No.6136/S/2008 dated 22.1.2009 issued by the first respondent, which reads that the registered owner/permit holder who has voluntarily paid the tax without a check report is not entitled for refund or adjustment of additional tax paid and contends that the petitioner is not entitled either for refund or adjustment of the excess tax voluntarily paid. A bare reading of the circular instructions does not show as to the competence of the first respondent in assuming jurisdiction for itself to formulate such instructions. That apart, the Division Bench in paragraph 61 of the judgment has observed that the State Government and its officials shall forbear from taking action to levy and collect additional tax under Section 3-A of the Act till a notification is issued in accordance therewith and a machinery is provided by law not only for its adjudication but also for its collection. It is further directed that the amounts, if any, paid by the petitioner pursuant to the interim orders of this Court shall be refunded to them. No such notification has been issued by the Government is produced by the learned Government Pleader. He is further unable to canvass as to the authority of the first respondent to issue the circular guidelines. Under the above circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Circular Instructions do not bind the petitioner and he is entitled for the refund of the excess tax paid, be it voluntarily. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed directing the second respondent either to refund the amount of Rs.56,700/- to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order or to adjust the same for the future tax. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao April 26, 2010 Copy within a week //BO// MAS