P. Harshavardan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Held
The Court held that the non-payment of the admitted amount was arbitrary and required intervention. Following previous judgments of this Court, including W.P.No.10038 of 2021, the Court directed the respondents to release the amount of Rs. 3,24,620/- to the petitioner. The Court further directed that interest at the rate of 6% per annum be paid on this amount. This payment is subject to the condition that the petitioner furnishes the necessary GST particulars to the respondents, as per the directions in the Division Bench judgment in Writ Appeal No.724 of 2021. The Court also clarified that it would be open for the petitioner to pursue a claim for a higher rate of interest, if any is payable, in an appropriate forum. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the specific rate of interest beyond 6% was left for determination in another forum.
Facts
The petitioner, P. Harshavardan Reddy, was awarded a contract for work(s) under a scheme in Nellore District. After executing the contract, a final bill was prepared for Rs. 3,24,620/-. The petitioner approached the High Court as this amount had not been paid by the respondents. The petitioner contended that the non-payment was arbitrary, despite the respondents admitting entitlement to the sum. The respondents, through the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation, admitted the claim but stated that the final bill had not yet been processed. They indicated that payment would be made soon after the final bill is completed, as per agreement conditions, and that the security deposit would be released after final payment.
Key Issues
1. Whether the non-payment of the admitted sum of Rs. 3,24,620/- to the petitioner for executed work(s) is arbitrary and requires the intervention of this Court, as per the petitioner's contention, relying on previous judgments of this Court including W.P.No.10038 of 2021 dated 05.10.2021? 2. Whether the respondents are obligated to release the payment of Rs. 3,24,620/- along with interest to the petitioner, considering the admitted claim and the instructions received by the Government Pleader, as argued by the petitioner, versus the respondents' submission that payment is contingent on the final bill completion? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment, and if so, at what rate, in light of the judgment in Writ Appeal No.724 of 2021 dated 12.10.2023, which mandates furnishing GST particulars for payment?
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned as being discussed or forming the basis of the decision, other than referencing previous judgments and the need for GST particulars as per a Division Bench ruling.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following Order:
The petitioner had been awarded the contract of work(s) under the subject scheme in Nellore District. After execution of the said contract, a final bill was prepared for a sum of Rs.3,24,620/- as per the sanctioned orders. As the payment of the said amount has not been made by the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition.
2
It is the contention of the petitioner that even though the respondents admitted that the petitioner is entitled for payment of the aforesaid sum of money, no payment is being made. The petitioner contends that such non- paym
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.