IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6394 of 2009 Between: 1. M/s.Sunil Traders, 19-1-915/5,Darga Bahadurpura Hyderabad rep.by its Proprietor Mirza Akbar Bai, S/o.Mirza Hussain baig, aged about 52 years, Hyderabad District 2. M/s.M.M.Traders,19-1-888/1,Behind Devi Bagh Bahadurpura, Hyderabad, rep.by its Proprietor Mirza Akbar Baig,S/o.Mirza Hussain Bai, aged about 52 years, Hyderabad District 3. M/s.K. Maheswar, 19-1-915/5, Darga Bahadurpura Hyderabad, rep.by its Proprietor K.Mahesh, S/o.Bhoomaiah Hyderabad District 4. M/s.MD.Moinuddin,19-9-546, Mahabub Gunj, Hyderabad, rep. by its Proprietor MD.Moinuddin S/o.Sharfuddin aged about 45 yeas, Hyderabad District 5. M/s.R.M.Traders,19-1-888/1 Behind Devi Bagh Bahadurpura, Hyderabad, rep.by its Proprietor, Mirza Akbar Baig, S/o.Mirza Hussain Baig, aged about 52 years,Hyderabad District 6. M/s.A.M.Traders, 19-1-888/1 Behind Devi Bagh Bahadurpura, Hyderabad, rep.by its Proprietor Mirza Akbar Baig,S/o.Mirza Hussain Baig, aged 52 years, R/o.Hyderabad District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1. The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, APSRTC Bus Bhavan Musheerabad,Hyderabad-500020, Hyderabad District 2. The Chief Controller of Stores, APSRTC, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-500020, Hyderabad 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 particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order/ communication of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad dated 4.2.2009 in Ref.No.PO/C.I/Dis.VAT- Refund/08-09/SPD issued by the Vice Chairman and Managing Director directing the petitioners to approach the Commercial Taxes Department for payment of the differential amount collected from the petitioners as sales tax as illegal, arbitrary, unfair, improper ,violative of the principles of natural justice, unconstitutional violating Article 265 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the judgment of this Hon`ble Court in WP.No.6554/96 dated 17.3.1998 and consequently direct the respondents to refund the amounts collected from the petitioners towards the difference in sales tax (i.e. 12% - 04%) in terms of the Government Orders in Memo No.28965/CT-II(1)/2005 dated 03.01.2006 along with interest at 12% forthwith and grant such other relief or reliefs as are deemed to be fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. M.V.J.K.KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY (S.C. FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) This petition has been filed with the prayer that the respondents be directed to return 8% of sales tax, which the respondent authorities had recovered from the petitioners when some unserviceable vehicles belonging to the respondent authorities were sold to the petitioners in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent authorities had auctioned their unserviceable vehicles and at the time of auction, the petitioners being the highest bidders, said vehicles were sold to petitioners and at that time the petitioners had paid 12% of the amount by way of sales tax to the respondent authorities, though, in fact, 4% of the sale price was to be paid by treating the same as scrap material. 3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent – Corporation has submitted that whatever amount recovered from the petitioners was forwarded to the Commercial Tax Department and no amount has been retained by the respondents. Moreover, the transactions had taken place in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 and therefore the respondents might not be having complete record pertaining to the said transactions at this juncture. Further, the Commercial Tax Department, to whom the amount of tax has already been paid by the respondent authorities, was not made as a party respondent to the petition. He has, therefore, submitted that the petition suffers from vires of delay and laches and also non-joinder of proper and necessary party as respondent. 4. Upon hearing the learned Advocates and looking to the facts of the case, we are in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the respondents as the petition has been filed after considerably long period and the Commercial Tax Department has not been joined as one of the respondents. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not entertain the petition and the petition is rejected. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 26th March, 2009 bnr