JUDGMENT S. R. NAYAK, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes and the matter is being disposed of at the admission stage with their consent. The grievance of the petitioner is that irrespective of the nature of the work awarded to the petitioner-contractor, the respondent-authorities deduct tax at source at the rate of 4 per cent on the basis of the instructions issued in memo dated February 24, 2000 issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, R & B Department and the circular memo dated July 7, 2000 issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj Department. The work awarded to the petitioner involves "excavation and lining of link canal from km. 0.650 to km. 1.475 between subsidiary reservoirs I and II of TGP main canal". This Court in W.P. No. 5148 of 2000 and batch (Venigella Narayana Rao v. Engineer-in-Chief (R & B) [2002] 125 STC 14) opined that the respondent-authorities cannot deduct tax at the enhanced rates basing on the memo dated February 24, 2000 unless the rule is amended. Subsequent to said judgment of this Court, the Government amended rule 17-I of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 enhancing the rates of tax deductible at source for various works by issuing G.O.Ms. No. 556, Revenue (CT) Department, dated August 7, 2000, which was published in the A.P. Gazette, on August 17, 2000. In that view of the matter, we dispose of the writ petition with the following clarifications and directions : 1. If the works contract awarded to the petitioner involves only earthwork, no tax need be deducted at source on the value of the earthwork. 2. If the works contract awarded to the petitioner involves erection or construction of structures, the respondents are at liberty to deduct tax at source at the rate of 4 per cent. 3. If the works contract awarded to the petitioner involves laying of roads, repairs to roads, canal digging, canal lining and repairs to canals, the respondents are at liberty to deduct tax at source at the rate of 2 per cent. It is, however, clarified that the amended rule should be applied only with effect from August 17, 2000 and as regards works carried out by the petitioner prior to that date would abide by the rates then prevailing. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition disposed of accordingly.