Facts of the Case

M/s Softline Advertising Pvt Ltd filed this writ petition seeking payment of Rs. 62,13,900 (including GST) and Rs. 52,66,380 for advertisement and service charges relating to publication of Government welfare scheme advertisements. The work had been entrusted to the petitioner via two release orders dated 27.12.2018 and 28.01.2019 issued by the Commissioner, Information and Public Relations Department (Respondent No. 3). Despite completing the work, the petitioner had not been paid, prompting the writ petition against the State of AP, the A.P. SC Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited (Respondent No. 2), and the Information and Public Relations Department.

Issues Involved

  1. Which of the respondents — the Finance Department, the Cooperative Finance Corporation, or the Information and Public Relations Department — was liable to pay the outstanding advertisement dues (inclusive of GST).

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The dues, including the GST component billed on the advertisement work, remained unpaid despite completion of the assigned work.
  • A Government Order (G.O.Ms.No.101 dated 14.08.2019) and the original work order indicated that Respondent No. 2 (the Cooperative Finance Corporation) was responsible for payment.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Respondent No. 2 (Cooperative Finance Corporation) contended, via its counter-affidavit, that it had written to Respondent No. 3 regarding the payment, suggesting the liability lay elsewhere.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court examined the Government Order and the work order and concluded that Respondent No. 2 alone was responsible for payment as per the terms of the work order and G.O.Ms.No.101.
  • The Court held Respondent No. 2's stance (that Respondent No. 3 should pay) was incorrect and superfluous.
  • Respondent No. 2 was directed to settle the petitioner's claim within four weeks.
  • The petitioner was directed to communicate a copy of the order to Respondent No. 2 within one week for immediate action.

Important Clarification

This is a contractual payment dispute between a government body and an advertising vendor; the mention of GST is only because the invoiced amount included the applicable tax component, exactly as it would on any commercial invoice. The Court did not interpret or apply any GST provision — it decided who, between two government bodies, was contractually responsible for paying an admitted bill.

Sections Involved

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India — writ jurisdiction
  • Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (interim relief prayer)

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the petitioner (Softline Advertising) — Respondent No. 2 was directed to settle the admitted claim, including the GST-inclusive amount, within four weeks; no costs were awarded.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
  • Case No.: WP No. 13439 of 2023
  • Coram: Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad
  • Date of Order: 30 August 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.