( 1 ) LEAVE granted. National Highway Authority of India granted a contract in favour of the respondent nos. 2 and 3, viz. , M/s. Madhucon Projects Ltd. and m/s. Madhucon Binapuri JV. The said respondents granted a sub-contract in favour of the appellant. The works contract involved in the agreement entered into by and between the respondent nos. 2 and 3 on the one hand and the appellant before us on the other, is exigible to sales tax in terms of the provisions of A. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act' ). Section 5f of the said Act provides for a non-obstante clause in terms whereof every dealer is to pay tax under the said Act for each year, on its turnover of transfer of property in goods whether as goods or in some other form, involved in the execution of works contract, at the rate specified therein. The fourth proviso appended tereto reads as under: "provided also that no tax shall be payable under this Section on the turnover relating to the amounts aid to a sub-contractor as consideration for the execution of works contract whether wholly or partly subject to the production of proof that such sub-contractor is a registered dealer liable to tax under the Act and that the turnover of such amount is included in the return of turnover filed by such sub-contractor". In terms of the said provision of law, the appellant before us only was to be considered as the 'dealer' within the meaning of the provisions of the said Act. It is thus an assessee under the said Act. ( 2 ) THE grievance of the appellant is that although tax had been deducted at source from his running bills by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 purported to be in terms of section 5-H of the said Act, but they did not fulfill their statutory obligation in remitting the amount so deducted in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 5-H thereof. ( 3 ) APPELLANT in the assessment proceedings, inter alia, raised a specific contention that the tax deducted at source from its running bills by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 had not been remitted to the concerned authority. The assessing officer, however, held a purported meeting between the representatives of the appellant and respondent nos. ( 3 ) APPELLANT in the assessment proceedings, inter alia, raised a specific contention that the tax deducted at source from its running bills by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 had not been remitted to the concerned authority. The assessing officer, however, held a purported meeting between the representatives of the appellant and respondent nos. 2 and 3 and arrived at a conclusion that the bills, showing deduction at source, submitted by the appellant are not correct. ( 4 ) AN appeal was preferred thereagainst. The appellate authority did not agree with the said finding of the assessing officer and remitted the matter back to it By reason of an order of assessment dated 22nd may 2006, the assessing officer held as under: "the assessment record for the year 2002-03 has also verified and found that the C. T. O. , Ashoknagar has recorded in his assessment order for the year 2002-03 stating that the 'assessee has submitted a signed statement of T. D. S. deduction made by M/s. Madhucon Binapuri J. V. , and m/s. Madhucon Projects Ltd. , for the year 2002-03 as detailed below: Rs . 1. B. C. & Tamilnadul ???? 10,384. 00 2. Vamshadhara Major Bridge Work ? 19,36,938. 00 3. Sabari Bridge ? 15,68,255. 00 5. 35,15,577. 00 ( 5 ) BUT on verification of the bills passed by M/s. Madhucon projects Ltd. , and M/s. Madhucon binapuri J. V. , in favour of M/s. Sri harsha Constructions they have made deductions on the value of the contract during the year 2002-03 as shown below. ( 6 ) DESPITE the said finding, however, the appellant herein was directed to deposit the amount of tax assessed stating, "the claim against the TDS credit for an amount of Rs. 4300004/- is examined and found untenable and not in accordance to the provision of the APGST Act 57. The TDS certificate amounting to rs. 3515577/- issued in favour of the contractor M/s. Madhucon Projects ltd. , and M/s. Madhucon Binapuri j. V. cannot be given credit to their account as per the provision of the apgst Act'57. In view of above circumstances the contentions raised by them is rejected and confirmed the turnover proposed in the show cause notice issued for the year 2002-03". ( 7 ) IN the meanwhile, the appellant filed writ petition before the High Court, inte alia, praying,". . . . . In view of above circumstances the contentions raised by them is rejected and confirmed the turnover proposed in the show cause notice issued for the year 2002-03". ( 7 ) IN the meanwhile, the appellant filed writ petition before the High Court, inte alia, praying,". . . . . . . . I pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the authorities of the Commercial taxes Department, Government of Andhra pradesh in general and respondents 1 and 4 in particular in non-recovery of the amounts deducted at source from the writ petitioner's running account bills by respondents 2 and 3 companies under APGST Act, 1957 under section 5h during the assessment years 1998-1999 to 2003 to 2004 towards sales tax either at 1% or 2% as recovered by the NHAI limited in respect of Bandar Canal-Tamileru project in the name of a recoupment/recovery in terms of clauses of the sub contract agreement as truly reflected in running account bills at item 4, @ 4% in the running account bills relating to Sabari and vamsadhara Projects work and remitting the same to the credit of the State Government of andhra Pradesh for necessary onward credit to the account of the writ petitioner towards the payment of the sales tax dues relating to the above mentioned assessment years as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of the provisions of Section 5h of the APGST Ac, 1957 and Article 265 of the Constitution of india and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 4 to recover and remit forthwith all the amounts in the aggregate of rs. 74,19,708/- recovered from the writ petitioner at source in any name towards the taxes as reflected in the bills during assessment years 1998-1999 to 2003-2004 with interest in terms of section 16 (3) of the apgst Act from the date of recovery with all attendant consequences as provided/envisaged under the provisions of the Act and further directing the first respondent not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner for recovering of any sales tax relating to the above mentioned assessment years, extent of Rs. 74,19,708/-and grant such other relief or reliefs as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case". 74,19,708/-and grant such other relief or reliefs as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case". ( 8 ) THE said writ petition has been held to be not maintainable by a Division Bench of the said Court opining that the dispute by and between the appellant and respondent nos. 2 and 3 is governed by private law element and not public law element. The appellant is, therefore, before us. ( 9 ) DR. M. V. K. Moorthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that in view of the statutory duty of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 as also in terms of the fourth proviso appended to Section 5f of the Act, the assessing officer was statutorily obligated to initiate proceedings against respondent nos. 2 and 3 for realization of the amount which had been deducted at source from the running bills of the appellant. The assessing officer thus having not performed his statutory duty qua respondent nos. 2 and 3, It was urged, the writ petition was maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment. ( 10 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and keeping in view that peculiar facts and circumstances of this case we are of the opinion that interest of justice shall be met if the Commissioner of commercial Taxes, i. e. , respondent no. 5 herein, is directed to go into the aforementioned question and pass appropriate order. He may do so either himself or nominate any Additional commissioner of Commercial Taxes on his behalf for the purpose. The appellant as also respondent nos. 2 and 3 may produce their books of account and other proof before the said authority. We have no doubt in our mind that an appropriate order/direction shall be passed/issued having regard to the entries made in the books of account and other documents furnished before the said authority by the parties as also upon taking into consideration the order of assessment passed by the assessing officer as indicated hereinbefore. ( 11 ) WE, however, intend to make the legal position clear. ( 11 ) WE, however, intend to make the legal position clear. Although in terms of the fourth proviso appended to Section 5f of the act, the contractor who has given the works contract to a sub-contractor who has given the works contract to a sub-contractor may not be liable to pay tax; the same, ipso facto, would not mean that it is discharged from performing other liabilities in terms, inter alia, under Section 5-H of the Act. If a person deducts tax at source in terms of statutory provision for the benefit of the dealer, the state and/or the assessing officer is not powerless to enforce such statutory duties imposed upon the person concerned. Assessment of tax has nothing to do with the recovery of the amount deducted by a contractor from the running bills of the sub-contractor, which is a separate statutory liability. We hope and trust that respondent no. 5 and/or his nominee shall complete the proceedings in terms of this order at an early date. Till such order is passed, no recovery shall be made from the appellant pursuant to or in furtherance of the assessment order already made. The appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.