IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 23932 of 2008 Between: M/s. Dwaraka Tirumala Constructions Rep. by its Executive Partner, Sri V. Satish Chowdary, D.No.28-1-38, 7th Lane, Shanti Nagar, Eluru, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary Finance (Works & Projects) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 Engineer -In-Chief (R&B) Roads, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. 3 Engineer -In-Chief (R&B) Admn. & N.H. Erramanzil, Hyderabad. 4 The Superintendent Engineer (R&B) Vijayawada Krishna District. 5 The Executive Engineer (R&B) Machilipatnam Krishna District. 6 The Pay & Accounts Officer (W&P) Vijayawada Krishna District. 7 The Commercial Tax Officer Eluru West Godavari District. .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that 1) The Memo.No.602 / F8(1) / 2006, dated 14-3-2007 issued by the 1st Respondent is arbitrary, illegal, invalid, contrary to the provisions of the A.P. value added Tax Act, Rules made there under, G.O.Ms.No's 11 dt.29-07-2005 and 141 dt.27-07-2006, and unsustainable. 2) The Petitioner is entitled for addition of VAT component of 4% on the entire value of work done under Agreement No's 10 ad 132 dt.03-05-2008 and 14-12-2007 respectively and the supplemental agreements there to, in terms of the provisions of the G.O.Ms. 11 dt.29-07-2005, 141 dt.27-07- 2006 and Section 22 (3) of the A.P. VAT Act, 3) Declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 6 in adding only 1.4% at the time of payment of each bill i.e., lesser than 4% as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Value Added Tax and the Government orders in force as well as the terms of the agreement and 4) Consequently direct the respondents 2 to 6 to pay the diﬀerence 2.6% amount on the total value of the work executed by the petitioner under Agreement No's 10 and 132 dt.03-05-2008 and 14-12-2007 respectively and the supplemental agreements there to, to the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.GIRISH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents.: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KBJ} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.23932 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) The petitioner, which is a ﬁrm carrying on business in the execution of “Works Contracts” and opted to pay Value Added Tax (VAT) at 4% under the provisions of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, has ﬁled this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents 2 to 6 to pay the diﬀerence 2.6% tax on the total value of the work executed by the petitioner alleging that they are not liable to pay the difference tax. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes. With their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 3. Both the learned counsel for the parties submitted that the relief claimed by the writ petitioner is squarely covered by the order of this Court in W.P.No.484 of 2008, dated 18-01-2008. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes further submits that though the petitioner states that he has paid 4% tax on the entire work done, it has to be ascertained while processing the final bill. 4. Following the ratio laid down by this Court in W.P.No.484 of 2008, dated 18-01-2008, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents 2 to 6 not to remit any further amount to the 7th respondent-Commercial Tax Oﬃcer, in respect of deductions already made pursuant to the Memo, dated 14-03-2007 of the 1st respondent, while processing the ﬁnal bill, however, subject to the payment of 4% which is stated to have been made by the petitioner. The respondents 2 to 6 are directed to pay the balance tax of 2.6% to the petitioner. No costs. _________________________ JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY _____________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR November 04, 2008 Kvr