BharatTaxGST

K Prasad And Co vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Original PDF →
WP/35110/2025HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01067809202502 February 2026Bench: SUBBA REDDY SATTI6 pages
For Petitioner: RAMBABU KOPPINEEDIFor Respondent: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV, GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING
AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The petitioners completed a construction work for a community hall and claimed an amount of Rs. 16,73,596/-. The respondents, however, withheld the payment despite the bills being finalized.

Held

The Court held that the non-payment of admitted dues can be considered an arbitrary action and a writ petition is maintainable for claiming such dues. The respondents were directed to release the admitted amount payable to the petitioners.

Key Issues

Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition for the recovery of admitted dues, and if the respondents' action in withholding payment of finalized bills is arbitrary.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
APHC010678092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 35110/2025 Between: 1. K PRASAD AND CO, D.NO.28/21-3, DABA GARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER KAMIREDDY PRASADU. 2. KAMIREDDY PRASADU, . S/O. K. MUTYAM, AGED 51 YEARS, OCCCONTRACTOR, R/O. D.NO.27-10-10/1, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, AYYAPPA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, THULLUR MANDAL, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. 2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, THULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. 2 SRS,J W.P.NO.35110 OF 2025 3. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, PANCHAYAT RAJ, Z.P.COMPOUND, OPPOSITE TO PWD GROUNDS, M.G.ROAD, VIJAYAWADA. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANAKAPALLI. 5. 5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ (P.R.I) DIVISION ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 6. 6. THE PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER, PAY AND ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toPleased to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in withholding the payment of balance of Rs. 16,73,596/- even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioners in relation to the works under GGMP Grant for Construction of Community hall at Gullepalli Village in K. Kotapadu Mandal of Anakapalli District (PR 4860-25878) through the Agreement No. 2023-24, dated 21-06- 2023 for an amount of Rs.16,73,596/- as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider for payment of amount of Rs. 16,73,596/- to the petitioners in respect of execution of above-mentioned work forthwith and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents to consider for payment of amount of Rs. 3 SRS,J W.P.NO.35110 OF 2025 16,73,596/- to the petitioners in respect of execution of works under GGMP Grant for Construction of Community hall at Gullepalli Village in K. Kotapadu Mandal of Anakapalli District (PR 4860-25878) through the Agreement No. 2023-24, dated 21- 06-2023 for an amount of Rs. 16,73,596/- forthwith pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. RAMBABU KOPPINEEDI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following:

ORDER

Heard Sri V. Satyanarayana Nekanti, learned counsel representing Sri K. Rambabu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Chaitanya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance, appeared for the respondents.

2.

The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in withholding the balance of amount of Rs.16,73,596/-, payable to the petitioners in relation to the work under GGMP Grant for the construction of a community hall at Gullepalli Village in K.Kotapadu Mandal of Anakapalli District, despite finalising the bills, as illegal and arbitrary.

W.P.NO.35110 OF 2025

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the successful bidders in respect of the aforementioned work. An agreement was entered into between the petitioners and the 5th respondent on 21.06.2023. The petitioners have completed the aforementioned work, and the amount payable to the petitioners is Rs.16,73,596/-.

4.

Sri Rajesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance, submitted the written instructions of the 5th respondent. As seen from the written instructions, the total value of the work done by the petitioners is Rs.19,91,343/-. The balance amount payable to the petitioners, after deductions, is Rs.18,40,139/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record.

5.

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have filed the present writ petition, claiming an amount of Rs.16,73,596/- i.e. exclusive of GST component. If the GST component is included, the amount payable to the petitioner is of Rs.18,40,139/-

6.

Thus, as seen from the written instructions, there is no dispute regarding the execution of work and the petitioners’ entitlement for an amount of Rs.18,40,139/- (inclusive of GST).

W.P.NO.35110 OF 2025 Since the amount payable to the petitioners is admitted and undisputed, the writ petition is maintainable. In M/s Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors v. Chief General Manager & Ors1, it was held at Para No.8 as under: “Be that as it may, the High court has not dealt with the merits of the writ petition. Moreover, it is not an inviolable rule that no money claim can be adjudicated upon in exercise of writ juri iction. Non-payment of admitted dues, inter alia, may be considered an arbitrary action on the part of respondents and for claiming the same, a writ petition may lie.Further, throwing a writ petition on ground of availability of alternative remedy after 10 years, particularly, when parties have exchanged their affidavits, is not the correct course unless there are disputed questions of fact which by their very nature cannot be adjudicated upon without recording formal evidence.”.

7.

Given the instructions furnished by respondent No.5, though there is variation in the amount claimed by the petitioner and the amount determined by the official, payable to the petitioners, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.18,40,139/- (inclusive of GST) payable to the petitioners regarding execution of the 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 W.P.NO.35110 OF 2025 aforementioned work, within four (04) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 03.02.2026 LSP

Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.