WP/27352/2008 of Y.Sai Reddy Vs Govt of A.P on 31 December 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH

AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTPRESENTTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMAND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMARWRIT PETITION No: 27352 of 2008

BETWEEN:

Y.Sai Reddy S/o. Hanmantha Reddy, 1-7-578/2 Gemeni Colony Ram Nagar, Hyderabad-20

... PETITIONER

AND

1 Govt of A.P Rep.by its Principal Secretary& Finance & Planning (Workers and Projects) Department At Secretariat Hyderabad (Workers and Projects) Department At Secretariat Hyderabad 2 The Superintending Engineer R&B Rural Circle at Balkampet Hyderabad. Hyderabad.

3 The Executive Engineer R&B Roads Division at Goshamahal, Hyderabad. Hyderabad.

4 The Commerical Tax Officer Musheerabad Office at Mayur Kushal Towers V Floor Abids Hyderabad. Towers V Floor Abids Hyderabad.

5 The Pay& Accounts Officer Ranga Reddy District at Nampally Hyderabad. Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may bepleased to issue a writ more particularly one in the nature of writ ofMandamus declaring the Memo No.602/F8(1)/2006 dt 14-03-2007 issued bythe 1st respondent as illegal arbitrary and contrary to the provisions ofAPVAT act and Rules made there and to consequently hold that petitioner isentitled for addition of 4% on the entire value of work done and deduction of4% towards VAT at the time of payment of each bill in terms of provisions ofGO Ms No.11 dt 29-07-2005 Go Rt No.141 dt 27-07-2006 under Section22(3) of APVAT act by directing the respondents to pay the difference of2.6% amount on the total value works to the petitioner and pass such otherorder or orders.

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.Y.SUDERSHAN REDDY

Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 5: GP FOR FINANCE

Counsel for Respondent No.2 & 3: GP FOR R & B

Counsel for Respondent No.4: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

The Court made the following:

ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram)

The petitioner is aggrieved by the Memo No.602/F8(1)/2006 dated14.03.2007 issued by the first respondent.

2. The first respondent by a subsequent Memo.No.14420/R.I(2)/08-1dated 17.12.2008 clarified that the Government ratifies the action of theEngineer-in-Chief (R&B) Roads in having adopted 4% VAT in the estimatessanctioned after the receipt of amendment to AP VAT Act 2005 and furtherratifies the action of the Engineer-in-Chief (R&B) Roads in having adopted4% VAT in the working estimates of those who have obtained the Courtorders.

3. In the light of the subsequent memo dated 17.12.2008 issued by thefirst respondent the mischief occasioned by the earlier memo dated14.03.2007 does not subsist and the petitioner would be entitled for additionof 4% on the entire value of work done and deduction of 4% towards VAT atthe time of payment of each bill, in terms of provisions of Section 22(3) of theAndhra Pradesh Value Added Tax, 2005.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________

GODA RAGHURAM, J

December 31, 2008DSK

_________________

SANJAY KUMAR, J