IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19867 of 2008 Between: M/s. Narsons Aquatech (P) Ltd Plot No.72/B Industrial Estate Chittoor Rep.by its Managing Director T.N Murali ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Industries and Chairman ,State Level Committee, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Chirag Ali Lane,Hyderabad 2 The Commercial Tax Officer Chittoor-II Circle Commercial Tax Department Government of A.P Chittoor,Chittoor 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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not considering the petition submitted by the petitioner vide Inward No.1242/2008 dated 08-08-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 1st respondent herein to consider and dispose of the petition Inward No.1242/2008 dated 08-08-2008 submitted by the petitioner and pass such other suitable orders as this court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.RAJENDRA BUSSA Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Division Bench of this Court made the following order : (order follows 2nd page) THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI A N D THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.19867 of 2008 O R D E R : This writ petition is ﬁled of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not considering the petition submitted by the petitioner vide Inward No.1242/2008 dated 08-08-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 1st respondent herein to consider and dispose of the petition Inward No.1242/2008 dated 08-08-2008 submitted by the petitioner and pass such other suitable orders as this court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. It is stated that the petitioner started SSIU Unit in the year 2000 under the name and style of M/s. Narsons Aquatech (P) Limited, Chittoor, Chittoor district. In the year 2000, the ﬁrst respondent oﬀered number of incentives on behalf of the Government of Andhra Pradesh granting exemption from levy of AP General Sales Tax vide GO.Ms.No.108, Industries and Commerce (IP) Department, dated 20-5-1996 for starting new small scale industries in the State. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the ﬁrst respondent failed to obey and implement the ﬁnal order passed by this court in WP.No.8970 of 2003 and batch dated 22-10-2003 in the matter of granting sales tax exemption on par with the petitioner industries in the said writ petition. Now the Deputy Commercial Tax Oﬃcer-II, issued show cause notice wherein provisional assessment of sales tax for the assessment year 2003- 04 for the months of December 2003 to March 2004 calling upon the petitioner to pay sales tax @ 12% for sale of drinking water at Rs.63,774/-. Further the second respondent is adopting coercive method for issue of a demand notice in Form-B (2). In such an event, the petitioner will be facing extreme hardship, injury and will not be able to run the industry in healthy manner. 4. It is stated that the petitioner challenged the Dy.Commercial Tax Oﬃcer-II vide Proceedings GI.No. 2019/03-04, dated 30-9-2004 for claiming of Commercial Tax and the petitioner was compelled to ﬁle the writ petition before this court in WPMP.No.581 of 2004 in WP.No.428 of 2005 and this Court granted stay on 20-1- 2005 as follows: Keeping in view the Division Bench Judgment in WP.No.8970 of 2003 and batch dated 22-10-2003 (Surya Mineral Water’s Case), there shall be stay of all further proceedings as prayed for. 5. Further it is stated that against the orders passed in WP.No.8970 of 2003 and batch dated 22-10- 2003, the ﬁrst respondent ﬁled SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of the C.A.No.1425 of 2004 and batch dated 07-9-2005. When the matter came up for further hearing both the learned counsel requested this court that the matters may be remitted to the State Level Committee for fresh consideration of the entire matter. Accordingly, the common order passed by this Court was set aside and the matter was remanded to the State Level Committee by giving liberty to both the parties to raise further contentions and also to place additional documents in support of their respective contentions. Since the matters have been remanded to the State Level Committee the order passed by the State Level Committee also stands set aside. The State Level Committee is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 6. It is also stated that as per the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the ﬁrst respondent granted exemptions to the package drinking water through Lr.No.20/2/7/1783/FD, dated 07-2-2006 and others and the case of the petitioner is also similar and identical but the writ petition is pending before this Court for disposal. Further the ﬁrst respondent had not instructed to his oﬃcers not to collect the value added tax for target 2000 as incentives oﬀered by the ﬁrst respondent on behalf of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner also challenged the notice issued by the second respondent vide PIN 28710119319, dated 22-11-2007 in W.P.No. 508 of 2008 and the same is withdrawn and ﬁled a petition before the ﬁrst respondent on 08-8-2008 vide Inward No.1242/2008 seeking to direct the second respondent not to invoke the AP value added tax to the petitioner, pending disposal of the above writ petition. 7. Sri K.Raji Reddy, the learned Special Standing Counsel for the respondents takes notice. 8. As can be seen from the averments made by the petitioner in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner ﬁled a representation before the ﬁrst respondent vide Inward No.1242 of 2008 dated 08-8-2008 and the same remained un-disposed of. Further the petitioner also sought to direct the respondents not to take coercive steps against the petitioner relating to RC.No.B/111/2007, dated 15-7-2008, issued by the second respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition. 9. Under the above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that there shall be a direction to the ﬁrst respondent to consider and dispose of the representation ﬁled by the petitioner vide Inward No.1242 of 2008, dated 08-8-2008 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till then during the interregnum the respondents shall not take coercive steps against the petitioner relating to RC.No. B/111/2007, dated 15- 7-2008. 10. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs. ------------------------------------- JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. -------------------------------------------- --- JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN. 15-9-2008. I s L ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}