IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 22369 of 2008 Between: M. Pandurangam S/o. M. Thirupathaiah R/o. Madanapuram (v), Kothakota Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Govt. of A.P. Rep. by its Prl. Secretary at Secretariat, Hyd. 2 The Superintending Engineer R & B Mahabubnagar. 3 The Executive Engineer R & B Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar Dist. 4 The Executive Engineer R & B Mahabubnagar. 5 The Commercial Tax Officer Gadwal Mahabubnagar Dist. 6 The Pay & A/cs. Officer Mahabubnagar. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a Writ in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction declaring the Memo No.602/F8(1)/2006 dt.14-3- 2007 issued by the ﬁrst respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of A.P. VAT. ACT. and Rules made there under and to consequently hold that petitioner is entitled for addition of 4% on the entire value of work done and deduction of 4% towards VAT at the time of payment of each bill, in terms of provisions of G.O.Ms.No.11 dt.29-7-2005, G.O.Rt.No.141 dt.27-7- 2006 and under section 22 (3) of AP. VAT. Act by directing the Respondents to pay the diﬀerence of 2.6% amount on the total value of works, to the petitioner; Award costs. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING The Division Bench of this Court made the following order: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI A N D THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 22369 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: ( per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Heard both sides. At their request, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. 2. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel on either side submitted that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 484 of 2008 dated 18.01.2008. However, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes submitted that though the petitioner states that it has paid 4% tax on the entire work done, it has to be ascertained while processing the final bill. 3. Following the ratio laid down in the above referred judgment, the Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to remit any further amount in respect of deductions already made pursuant to the Memo No.602/F8(1)/2006, Finance (Works & Projects) Department, 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, as agreed by the counsel on either side, that the balance of 2.6% has to be added by the respondents in the bills. 4. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs. ------------------------------------- JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. ----------------------------------------------- JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN. 16-10-2008. I s L ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies \Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KBJ}