HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 18570 OF 2009 Date: 19.10.2009 Between: M/s.Golden Carpets Limited … Petitioner State of Andhra Pradesh rep. By By Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT.II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 18570 OF 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The petitioner challenges the notice dated 5.8.2009 issued by the spondent intimating a demand of Rs.13,24,120/-towards the liability petitioner as to deferred tax for the year 2005-06. The liability is d to have arisen consequent on the amendment of the Andhra h Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (for short ‘the 2005 Rules’) issued in s. No. 503, Revenue (CT.II) Department, dated 8.5.2009. Sri Satyanarayana Prasad, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner states that while the petitioner availed a tax holiday during the period 9.11.1998 to 8.11.2005 under the A.P.G.S.T. Act, 1957, with the coming into force of the A.P. VAT Act with effect from 1.4.2005 under the regime of conversion of tax holiday into tax deferment scheme qua Section 69 of the 2005 Act, the balance period as on the coming into force of the A.P. VAT Act was doubled including in the case of the petitioner and the modalities for payment of the deferred tax etc., were to be governed by the 2005 Rules, including as to the period of eligibility, the method of debiting eligibility amount, the repayment and any other benefits, for all units availing tax deferment. Rule 67 of the 2005 Rules governs the procedure and treatment of entive cases. This Rule has been amended by G.O. Ms. No.503, 8.5.2009, consequent on which, the impugned demand is issued. Sri Prasad, the learned Senior Counsel would assert that the er was entitled to a notice and opportunity to dispute the quantum of mand, i.e., Rs.13,24,120/-. It is contended that the issuance of the d notice without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to contest antum of the demand constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, Sri Varma, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission enabling the petitioner to address the 3rd respondent within four (4) weeks from today setting out any objections that the petitioner has with regard to the quantum of the demand set out in the impugned demand notice dated 5.8.2009. On receipt of such objections, if any, asserted by the petitioner within the stipulated time, the third respondent may consider the same and communicate to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter its decision on the matter, either reiterating the demand as set out in the impugned notice dated 5.8.2009 or altering it, as per the lawful discretion of the 3rd respondent. The writ petition is disposed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date: 19th October, 2009 Pnb