BharatTaxGST

Proddatur Municipality vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Original PDF →
WP/27672/2025HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01053611202525 November 2025Bench: HARINATH.N6 pages
For Petitioner: N RANGA REDDY
AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The petitioner municipality alleged that respondents 5 and 6 allowed respondent 7 to conduct an exhibition without paying the full bid amount and applicable GST. The petitioner sought recovery of the balance bid amount and GST.

Held

The Court noted that the entire bid amount had been paid by the 7th respondent through various challans. The applicable GST amount was also stated to have been paid via cheque. Since the amounts were paid, the Court found nothing further to adjudicate.

Key Issues

Whether the full bid amount and applicable GST were paid by the highest bidder for conducting an exhibition, and if not, whether recovery was warranted.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
APHC010536112025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 27672/2025 Between: 1. PRODDATUR MUNICIPALITY, PRODDATUR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, BHIMUNIPALLI LAKSHMIDEVI W/O B.NAGARAJU ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, AT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, NEAR DGP OFFICE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 522002 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT 4. THE COMMISSIONER, VIGILANCE AND ENFORCEMENT, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 5. THE COMMISSIONER, PRODDATUR MUNICIPALITY, PRODDATUR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT 6. C RAVICHANDRA REDDY, COMMISSIONER, PRODDATUR MRMICIPALITY, PRODDATUR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT 7. N VENKATA SIVA KUMAR, S/O N.VENKATA SWAMY R/O 6-239/10, 2 TEACHERS COLONY, KOTHAPALLI, PRODDATUR, YSR KADAPA DIST. ...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 toleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the action of 6th Respondent, holding the post of 5th Respondent m allowing the 7th Respondent to conduct the exhibition without payment of full bid amount, contrary to the tender conditions, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the terms of auction and also violates the public trust doctrine and to consequently direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to forthwith initiate action to conduct enquiry in the matter and recover the balance bid amount of Rs.1,25,38,000/- plus GST @ 18 percent from the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 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 issue interim directions to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to forthwith conduct enquiry against the 6* Respondent, holding the post of 5* Respondent and recover the balance bid amount of Rs. 1,25,38,000/- 18 % GST from Respondent No. 6 & 7 for allowing the 7* Respondent to conduct exhibition without depositing the full bid amount as per tender conditions, pending disposal of W.P.No.of 2025 and ' pass IA NO: 2 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 May be pleased to implead V. Muralidhar Reddy /proposed respondent No.8 as Respondent No. 8 in W.P. No. 27672 of 2025 as well as I.A.No,.1/2025 in W.P.No.27672/2025 for proper and effective adjudication of the writ petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N RANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 3 1. Gudapati Lakshminarayana SC For Municipalities in Rayalaseema Region 2. GUDAPATI LAKSHMI NARAYANA 3. V NITESH 4. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 4

ORDER:

The Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the in action on part of the 6th respondent in holding the post of the 5th respondent and permitting the 7th respondent to conduct the exhibition without paying the entire bid amount as per the tender conditions.

2.

It is submitted that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 have facilitated the 7th respondent in conducting the exhibition by collecting only part of the total amount.

3.

The 7th respondent was the highest bidder and has to pay an amount of Rs.1,91,44,000/-, apart from the applicable GST.

4.

It is submitted that the respondent Nos.5 & 6, with ulterior motives ensured that the 7th respondent conducts the exhibition by accepting part amount instead of accepting the entire amount as per the tender conditions.

5.

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent submits that the entire bid amount was paid by the 7th respondent vide different challans spread over from 12.09.2025 to 17.11.2025, with the final payment having been made on 17.11.2025 and that the 7th respondent is due payable to pay the applicable GST amount, for which, the 7th respondent is said to have been issued a cheque.

5

6.

Since the amounts are paid, nothing survives in the Writ Petition to adjudicate on merits and accordingly, the same is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N SCH

6

368 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

Writ Petition No.27672 of 2025

Date: 26.11.2025

SCH

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.