ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed to declare the Circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Enforcement Wing, A.P., Hyderabad, in CCT’s Ref.ENFT.No.B3/17/AC-III/2007-08, dated 03.01.2008 as illegal, void and consequently set aside the same. 2. The writ petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a registered dealer on the rolls of Commercial Tax Officer, Srinagar Colony Circle, Hyderabad with TIN No.28590179366 and engaged in the business of execution of civil works, including construction of buildings – residential and commercial, roads, bridges, dams, electrical installation etc., throughout the country. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that as per the amended provision, the dealer is exigible to pay CST @2% on his turnover provided the sale is effected to registered dealer against ‘C’ form and however, if the goods are sold other than the registered dealer, the sale is exigible to tax at the rate prescribed in the corresponding goods under the local Act and under the scheme of Section 8(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, ‘Act, 1956’), it is only the registered dealer that are equipped and made eligible to make purchase against ‘C’ forms. The writ petitioner further contended that they are the works contractors and in pursuit of its activity, they buy raw-material like cement, steel etc., and after introduction of Article 366 (29-A) of the Constitution of India, the material used in execution of works contract should also be treated as deemed sale for the purposes of levy of sales-tax under Entry 54 of List-II of VII Schedule of the Constitution of India and in the course of said business, the Commercial Tax Department has been permitting the dealers to incorporate not only the material required for execution of works contract, but also capital goods used in execution of such works contract in the Certificate of Registration and permit buying of such goods against ‘C’ form. However, it is contended by the writ petitioner that the Commissioner (CT) in Circular, dated 03.01.2008, has issued clarification that the purchase of capital goods cannot be made on the strength of ‘C’ forms though such capital goods are being used in the execution of works contract, is illegal and arbitrary. However, it is contended by the writ petitioner that the Commissioner (CT) in Circular, dated 03.01.2008, has issued clarification that the purchase of capital goods cannot be made on the strength of ‘C’ forms though such capital goods are being used in the execution of works contract, is illegal and arbitrary. It is contended that the Commissioner (CT) has issued said Circular, which is in violation of principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur and another, (1965) 16 STC 563 (SC) and in view of the said Circular, the Commercial Taxes Authorities are insisting deletion of capital goods from the Certificate of Registration and threatening to impose penalty for issuing of ‘C’ forms in the context of purchase of capital goods. It is contended that instructions issued by the Commissioner (CT) are impeding the discretionary powers of the assessing authorities, more particularly, the Commercial Taxes Officers/Assessing Authorities to examine the facts of each case on its own merit are simply rejecting the cases of the dealers solely basing upon the Circular issued by the Commissioner (CT) dated 03.01.2008. It is contended that the said Circular is in gross violation of due procedure of law and is ousting the discretionary powers of the statutory authorities and thus, is violative of orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, it is contended that the said circular is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and highhanded and is liable to be quashed. 4. It is also contended that though the Commissioner has power to issue such circulars under Section 77 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, which are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or the Rules made there under to his subordinate officers for the proper administration of the Act. The said Section also contemplates that such circulars cannot oust the discretionary powers of the appellate authority and, by necessary implication, makes it clear that the power under Section 77 of the Act cannot be exercised so as to disable or curtail the discretion of the statutory authorities. The said Section also contemplates that such circulars cannot oust the discretionary powers of the appellate authority and, by necessary implication, makes it clear that the power under Section 77 of the Act cannot be exercised so as to disable or curtail the discretion of the statutory authorities. The impugned Circular dated 03.01.2008 is nothing but violative of the judicial precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in J.K. Cotton Spinning (supra) and it is also submitted that a batch of writ petitions came up before this Court in W.P.No.20519 of 2004 and batch, where similar issues were raised when the Commissioner has issued instructions in respect of levying of turnover tax on the subsequent sales of telephones and cell phones and this High Court considering the facts of the said cases held that the Commissioner has no power to issue the circular so as to disable the discretion of the statutory authorities and also as various authorities under the APGST Act, 1957, are quasi-judicial authorities, are legally bound to adjudicate the matters on the basis of appreciation of facts and law in each case. Thus, by the issuance of the said circular, the Commissioner has prejudged the issue and directed that the matters coming before the assessing authority to be decided in a particular way. So also in the case of W.P.No.27123 of 2014, the Division Bench of this Court, by placing reliance on the decision of M/s. Unitech Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer, Gajuwaka , (1991) 12 ASPSTJ 176 , has categorically held that the assessing authority while examining the said issue for grant of ’C’ form afresh without being influenced by the Circular instructions of the Commissioner dated 03.01.2008 and 30.08.2012, apply its own mind while deciding the said issue. 5. 5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the Commissioner has power under Section 77 of the APVAT Act, 2005 to issue instructions to his subordinate authorities to follow the guidelines and in the instant case, it is contended that the Commissioner has issued the said circular dated 03.01.2008 directing the authorities to follow certain guidelines to examine all the case of works contractors with reference to the Certificates of Registration issued to them under the CST Act and see that the ineligible goods are deleted under intimation to the respective works contractors and they were also directed to take steps to examine all the cases of works contractors, resorting to misuse of ‘C’ forms by purchasing the ineligible goods against ‘C’ forms in violation of Section 8(3) of CST Act, 1956 and appropriate action shall be initiated in terms of Section 10A of the CST Act. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would contend that the Circular is not violative of the judicial precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and emphasizes that the Commissioner has the power under Section 77 of the APVAT Act, 2005 and contended that the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel representing Mr. S.Chakrapani and Mr. T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents and having given earnest consideration of the submissions made by both the counsels, perused the material on record. 7. 6. We have heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel representing Mr. S.Chakrapani and Mr. T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents and having given earnest consideration of the submissions made by both the counsels, perused the material on record. 7. Before going into the rival contentions urged by the counsels, perusal of circular dated 03.01.2008 would go to show that the Commissioner has directed the assessing authorities to take steps to examine all the cases of works contractors with reference to the Certificates of Registration issued to them under the CST Act, 1956 and to see that the ineligible goods are deleted under intimation to the respective works contractors and it is further directed to take steps to examine all the cases of works contractors, resorting to misuse of ‘C’ forms by purchasing the ineligible goods against ‘C’ forms in violation of Section 8(3) of CST Act, 1956 and also directed to initiate appropriate action in terms of Section 10A of the CST Act and thus vide the circular, apparently the Commissioner has directed the assessing authorities/statutory authorities to do their functions in a particular fashion, which has definitely a bearing on the discretion of the assessing authorities/statutory authorities, who are the primary authorities and the quasi-judicial authorities and have to decide each case on its own merits uninfluenced. In a similar matter, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.20519 of 2004 and batch, so also a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.27123 of 2014 has also considered a case of similar nature and allowed the said writ petition by directing the 1st respondent therein to consider the petitioner’s request for grant of ‘C’ form afresh without being influenced by the circular instructions issued by the Commissioner dated 03.01.2008 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court also in the similar case in J.K. Cotton Spinning (supra), held that circular cannot be issued by the Commissioner to pass orders in a particular way to the assessing authorities. In the instant case also, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be germane and valid and the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the Commissioner has the power under Section 77 of the APVAT Act, 2005 to issue instructions to his subordinates, is not sustainable as the proviso to the said Section 77 of the Act would go to show that though the Commissioner is vested with such power, the same shall not curtail the discretion of the appellate authority impliedly, which also applies to the discretionary powers of the assessing authorities, hence the said contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is untenable and is accordingly rejected. 8. In the light of the said facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion, the circular dated 03.01.2008 is nothing but interdicting the discretion of the assessing authorities/statutory authorities and also violative of principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in J.K. Cotton Spinning (supra) and accordingly, the said circular is hereby quashed and set aside and the Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.