Facts of the Case

The petitioner had approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation and connected authorities to pay Rs.17,63,038/- (including GST) towards advertisement and service charges for 23 lit and non-lit hoardings displayed in Visakhapatnam, pursuant to a work order dated 26.12.2018. The amount claimed was for services already rendered, with GST forming a component of the billed sum rather than being the subject of any tax dispute.

When the matter came up before Justice Ravi Cheemalapati on 01.05.2023, counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that the respondent authorities had, pursuant to the filing of the writ petition, already paid the amounts claimed.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether any adjudication remained necessary once the disputed payment had been made during the pendency of the writ petition.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The respondent authorities had failed to pay Rs.17,63,038/- (including GST) due for advertisement/hoarding services rendered under a 2018 work order.
  • The inaction was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
  • Following the filing of the writ petition, the amount had in fact been paid by the respondent-authorities, and there was nothing left to adjudicate.

Respondent's Arguments

No separate contest was recorded; the order proceeds directly on the petitioner's submission that payment had already been received, without any counter from the respondents.

Court Order / Findings

  • Recording the petitioner's submission that the disputed amount had already been paid, the Court closed the writ petition.
  • No order as to costs was made.
  • Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were closed.

Important Clarification

The reference to GST in this case is incidental — GST was simply one component of a composite advertisement bill, not a contested tax question. The order records payment and closure; it does not lay down any principle on how GST should be computed, charged, or recovered on service contracts, and should not be relied upon for that purpose.

Sections Involved

  • Article 226, Constitution of India (writ jurisdiction)
  • Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (interim application)

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of without a decision on merits — closed as infructuous since the disputed amount, inclusive of GST, was paid to the petitioner during the pendency of the case.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
  • Case No.: Writ Petition No.1050 of 2022
  • Coram: Hon'ble Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati
  • Date of Order: 01.05.2023

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.