IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 23940 of 2008 Between: M/s. Joy Alukkas Traders (India) Private Limited, 6-3-678/1/1, Punjagutta, Hyderabad rep. by its Manager- Hyderabad Branch, Sri Justin Pulikkan. ..... PETITIONER AND Commercial Tax Officer, Somajiguda Circle, Hyderabad. .....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 a writ or dirction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus setting aside the impugned Revised Assessment of Value Added Tax in form Vat 305, dated 08.08.2008 in TIN No.28967218094 for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 under the APVAT Act or to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) This petition is filed to set aside the impugned revised order assessment of Value Added Tax in Form Vat 305, dated 8-9-2008 passed in TIN No. 28967218094 for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. While several contentions are raised by Sri Suribabu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, it would suffice to take note of the submission that the very same transaction, which relate to branch transfers has been taxed twice i.e., both under the APGST Act and under the CST Act. Learned counsel would submit, in our opinion, rightly so, that the same transaction cannot be taxed twice. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes would submit that the order, impugned in this petition, was passed prior to the order passed under the CST Act. The writ petition filed challenging the assessment orders, passed under the CST Act, has been disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner herein to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal. Since the same transaction cannot be taxed twice, we consider it appropriate to set aside the order and remand the matter back to the Commercial Tax Officer to determine, after proper examination of the material on record, whether the same transaction has been taxed under the CST Act also and, thereafter, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs. _____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 6th February, 2009 _______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J GRR