IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 19150 of 1997 Between: A. Thippaiah Swamy S/o A. Karbasappa Uravakonda, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND Regional Transport Officer Ananthapur District. .....RESPONDENT 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned Demand Notice in RC.No.6079/A2/94 dt: 22- 5-1997 of the Respondent herein and quash the same; and pass such other or further orders as are necessary. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.E.MARUTHI RAJA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V. SANJAY KUMAR W.P.No. 19150 of 1997 Oral Order: (Per: GR, J) The petitioner’s stage carriage bus bearing registration No. AP.02/T.0079 was stopped and checked on 29-05-1994 and found plying on an unauthorized route in deviation of the permit. Consequently, the impugned demand notice dated 22-05-1997 was issued demanding the difference tax payable i.e., an amount of Rs.13,680- 00, assailing which the writ petition is filed. It is fairly stated by the learned Government Pleader for Transport that in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Kanapala Rama Rao v. Regional Transport Officer, Srikakulam1 and affirmed by a Larger Bench Judgment of this Court reported in L. Royal Reddy and others v. Government of A.P.2, the notice of demand calling upon the petitioner to pay the difference of tax is not sustainable. In the light of the submissions and in the light of the judgments of this Court supra, the impugned demand notice is quashed. On 13-08-1997 interim suspension of demand notice was granted by this Court on condition that the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.2,400-00 with the respondent within four weeks. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the conditional interim order above, the petitioner has deposited the amount of Rs.2,400-00 (Rupees two thousand four hundred only). If that be so, in view of the quashing of the impugned demand notice, the petitioner shall be entitled to refund of the amount deposited. The respondent shall refund the deposited amount to the petitioner within a period of two weeks on his making an application for refund of the deposit. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall however be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _________________________ P.V. SANJAY KUMAR, J Dated: 29-12-2008 Pvks 1 2001 (6) ALD 402 (FB) 2 2004 (2) ALD 225 (LB)