IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION Nos.6707 of 2008 & 2991 of 2012 DATE OF ORDER: 20.02.2026 Between:

M/s. Lanco Hills Technology Part Pvt. Ltd.

…Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

…Respondents

COMMON ORDER:

(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Sam Koshy)

Since the issue in the instant Writ Petitions is one and the same, and the parties thereto are also same, they are heard together and are decided by this Common Order.

2. Writ Petition No.6707 of 2008 is filed seeking the following relief/s, viz., “.........to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Assessment order of 2nd Respondent in CCT’s Enft.AC.III/Case No.40/2007-08 dt. 23-2-2008 as illegal arbitrary and set aside the same or in the alternative declare Section 4(7)(d) to the extent it authorizes the levy of VAT on amount received prior to execution of sale deed as ultra vires Entry 54 of List II of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution and strike down the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. Writ Petition No.2991 of 2012 is filed seeking the following relief/s, viz., “.........to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of 3^rd Respondent in passing the impugned order dated 16.01.2012 as illegal and without authorization of law and jurisdiction and in violation of the provisions of A.P. VAT Act 2005 and also contrary to the orders passed by the Advance Ruling Authority in CCT’s Ref No.PMT/P&L/Ar.com/80/2006 dated 30.07.2006 and set aside the same and further declare that Rule 17 (4) (c) as invalid, inoperative and cannot be enforced and be pleased to pass such other order/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

4. Heard Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax for the respondents.

5. For convenience, the facts in Writ Petition No.2991 of 2012 are discussed hereunder.

6. Fact in toto are that the petitioner is a company engaged in the business of developing and selling residential flats and commercial properties, falling under Section 4(7)(d) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short the ‘APVAT Act’). The dispute arose when the respondent No.3 / Commercial Tax Officer passed an order dated 16.01.2012 demanding tax on advances received by the petitioner during the period October, 2007 to March, 2008 prior to the registration of sale deeds which is contrary to the order passed by the Advance Ruling Authority in CCT's Ref.No:PMT/P&L/Ar.Com/80/2006, dated 30.07.2006, regarding the time of payment of tax by dealers under Section 4(7)(d) of the APVAT Act. According to the petitioner, it has not collected tax on advances received before the registration.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the under Section 4(7)(d) of the APVAT Act, read with Rule 17(4)(i), tax at the rate of 1% is payable only on the total value of consideration received or receivable at the time of registration of the property in favor of the buyer. The expression ‘received or receivable’ in Section 4(7)(d) of the APVAT Act is referable only to sale consideration in respect of completed sale transactions culminating in execution and registration of sale deeds and not to mere advances received before such registration. Until registration of the conveyance deed is completed, no sale can be said to have been effected, as the prospective purchaser retains the option to retract from the transaction. Therefore, levying tax on advances received before registration would am