APHC010236432007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 24th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 20982 OF 2007 Between: 1. M/S. HARI LIME INDUSTRIES, GUNTUR DISTRICT, Piduguralla, Guntur District, Rep by its Proprietrix, K. Satyavathi, W/o. VasudevaReddy, aged about 51 years. ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF A P HYDERABAD ANOTHER, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The Assistant Commissioner CT, VAT Management Unit-II, O/o. Deputy Commissioner (CT), Narsaraopet Division, Guntur, Guntur District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue Writ of Mandamus declaring section 13(4) and Rule 20 (2)(h) as unconstitutional violating Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the constitution of India and alternatively to declare that GO Ms.No. 2201, dt. 29- 12-2007 cannot be given retrospective effect to the transactions from 1-4-05 restricting the input tax credit to the dealers engaged in the business of dealing in goods as mentioned in clause-h of sub rule-2 of Rule-20 of the 2 APVAT Rules and rejecting the benefit of input tax credit as mentioned in section 13 of the APVAT Act to the petitioner on the purchase of coal for the period from 4/05 to 3/06 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, without authority of law, unconstituional and without jurisdiction and consequently to set aside the impugned order dt. 23-3-2007 in TIN No. 2873020810 passed by the 2nd respondent directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 86,345/- representing tax, penalty and interest in the composite form towards the input tax credit for the period from April, 05 to March, 06 without considering the objections filed to the show cause notice as illegal, improper, unjust, without authority of law and jurisdiction much less contrary to the provisions of the APVAT Act and the rules there of and the judgement of this Hon'ble Court reported in 147 STC 462 and pass such other order or orders as are deemed to be fit and proper in the circumstances of the case IA NO: 1 OF 2007(WPMP 27206 OF 2007 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings arising out of the impugned demand notice dt. 23-3-2007 in TIN No. 2873020810 demanding the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 86,345/- representing tax, penalty and interest towards the amount of input tax credit claimed for the period from April, 05 to March, 06 on the purchase of coal from local coal dealers and grant Counsel for the Petitioner: M V J K KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following order: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No: 20982 OF 2007 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya) Heard Dr. M.V.K. Moorthy, learned arguing counsel for the petitioner, who appeared through online and Mr.S.A.V. Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, appearing for the respondents. 2. At the time of considering the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the decision rendered by a Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of A.P. in W.P.No.3259 of 2006 & batch dated 30.12.2010. 3. In the said batch, the constitutional validity of Section 13(4) of VAT Act and Rule 20(2) of VAT Rules was challenged. Learned Division Bench after considering the matter at length, disposed of the matters inter alia with certain directions. The operative portion of the orders reads as follows:- “In the result, we dispose of the writ petitions declaring and directing that (i) the impugned Section 13(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 does not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation; (ii) the Rule 20(2)(h) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 is valid with effect from the date it is notified i.e., 31.12.2005; (iii) all the assessment orders be and hereby are set aside and stand remitted to the respective authorities to take action in accordance with this judgment and order; and 4 (iv) there shall be no order as to costs.” 4. Similar challenge is made in the present writ petition. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader fairly submits that the instant writ petition is covered by the said decision, which has attained finality. 6. It is also noted that a Division Bench in Tax Revision Case No.10 of 2024 while dealing with the transitional provision i.e., Section 13 (2) of VAT Act., partly allowed the Tax Revision Case. Be that as it may. 7. On a consideration of the submissions made and in view of the undisputed position that the issue involved in the present writ petition has already been decided, the present writ petition also disposed of, on similar lines. 8. Accordingly, the subject matter assessment order is set aside and matter stands remitted to the concerned authority for taking action, in accordance with the decision rendered in W.P.No.3259 of 2006 & batch dated 30.12.2010. 9. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J _______________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J GVK 5 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No.20982 OF 2007 Dt. 24.08.2026 GVK