IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10249 of 2009 Between: M/s. Janahitha Publication Pvt. Ltd. Flat No. 115, Sovereign Shelter, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Director G.M. Radhakrishna S/o. Late G. Venkateswara Rao, 49 yrs, Business, Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P. Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commercial Tax Officer , Basheerbagh Circle Ist Floor, Old Kakatiya Hotel, Nampally Station Road, Abids, Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Commissioner (CT) Abids Division Hyderabad. ... 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 one in the nature of writ of Mandamus and declare that the A.P. Value Added Tax, 2005 does not apply to the petitioner Agency that the petitioner is not a dealer under the said Act and consequently set aside the impugned notice dt. 6-5-2009 issued by the 2nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and violative of fundamental right of the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.G.VIJAYA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 10249 OF 2009 ORDER: (per Sri B. Prakash Rao, J) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes and with their consent, the matter is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. The petitioner who is doing business in publications filed this writ petition inter alia assailing notice dated 06-05-2009 whereunder it was asked to submit details of service tax paid by it and also the other details. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of the dealer as defined under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. Hence, the writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel and also having regard to the fact that the writ petition is filed only against notice, we do not find any reason to interdict the same. It is always open to the petitioner to file a detailed reply including the plea that it does not fall within the definition of dealer under the said Act, within a period of four weeks from today. If such reply is filed, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders. Till such time, the respondents shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. B. PRAKASH RAO, J P. SWAROOP REDDY,J Dated: 20-05-2009 ks