Facts of the Case

Ketha Venkata Ramana Reddy, a works contractor, filed this writ petition against the State of Andhra Pradesh (Irrigation Department) seeking release of Rs. 53,03,675/- due to him for execution of works under four separate agreements dated between 18.06.2022 and 30.06.2022, along with 12% GST and interest from the date of completion of the works. This is fundamentally a contractual payment-recovery matter, not a GST assessment dispute — GST features only as a component of the amount claimed to be due under the works agreements. A counter affidavit filed by the sixth respondent confirmed that the measurements had been checked and quantified, but the bills had not been uploaded on the CFMS portal due to lack of Letter of Credit (LOC).

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the respondent authorities were justified in delaying payment of admitted contractor dues.
  2. Whether the GST and interest components claimed by the petitioner could be adjudicated in this writ petition.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The works had been completed to the satisfaction of the respondent authorities, yet payment of the bills had been withheld, causing financial hardship.

Respondent's Arguments

  • There was no dispute regarding the work executed by the petitioner; the delay was attributable to non-uploading of bills on the CFMS portal for want of Letter of Credit.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court found the delay in paying an admittedly due bill amount to be unjust, but allowed the respondents some time to arrange payment.
  • The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pay the amount due, after statutory deductions, within eight weeks.
  • The Court clarified that the petitioner could raise his claim regarding the GST and interest component before the appropriate forum, if so advised — the writ petition did not adjudicate that component.
  • No order as to costs was passed.

Important Clarification

Where GST is claimed merely as a component of a commercial or works-contract bill, a writ court will typically direct payment of the undisputed principal amount but decline to rule on the GST/interest component itself, leaving that for the appropriate forum (such as a civil suit or arbitration, or GST authorities if a genuine tax dispute exists). This order should not be cited as authority on any GST rate or liability question.

Sections Involved

  • Constitution of India, Article 226
  • Reference only — Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 component of the contract price (not adjudicated)

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of in favour of the petitioner to the limited extent of directing payment of the admitted principal dues within eight weeks; the GST/interest component was left open for the petitioner to pursue before the appropriate forum, so there was no adjudication on that aspect.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati
  • Case Number: Writ Petition No. 8256 of 2023
  • Coram: Justice Ninala Jayasurya
  • Date of Order: 27.09.2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.