R Ramesh vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Held
The Court held that there was no justification for the respondents to withhold the deposit amounts from the petitioner, especially after the completion of the defect liability period and the satisfactory execution of the works. The Court acknowledged the respondents' submission that budget non-release was the reason for the delay but found it insufficient to justify the continued withholding of funds. The Court's reasoning was based on the principle that contractors should not be made to wait indefinitely for payments due after the completion of contractual obligations and the expiry of warranty periods. The Court directed the respondents to release the deposit amounts (Withheld + GST + FSD + EMD) under the specified agreements to the petitioner within four weeks of receiving the order. No costs were awarded.
Facts
The petitioner, a contractor, filed a writ petition challenging the respondents' action of not releasing deposit amounts (Withheld + GST + FSD + EMD) under five different agreements executed in 2017-18 for works in Chittoor District. The petitioner claimed to have completed the works as per the agreements, with no defects noted during measurement. While work execution amounts were paid, the deposit amounts remained unreleased even after the defect liability period expired. The petitioner had approached the respondents multiple times without success, prompting the filing of the writ petition seeking a direction for release of these deposits.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondents are justified in withholding the deposit amounts (Withheld + GST + FSD + EMD) under the specified agreements, despite the petitioner completing the works and the defect liability period having expired? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the works were completed satisfactorily, as evidenced by measurement books, and the defect liability period had passed. Therefore, the withholding of deposit amounts was unjustified and they sought a direction for their release. Respondents' Argument: The learned Government Pleader, admitting the petitioner's claim, placed on record written instructions stating that the delay in payment was due to the non-release of budget by the Government. They assured that payments would be made soon after the budget was released.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION No.22048 OF 2023 ORDER:
The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not releasing the deposits (Withheld + GST + FSD + EMD) bill amounts under the following agreements
(i) Agreement Nos.92 DN/2017-18 dated 17.05.2017
(ii) Agreement Nos.91 DN/2017-18 dated 17.05.2017
(iii) Agreement Nos.110 DN/2017-18 dated 18.05.2017
(iv) Agreement Nos.64 DN/2017-18 dated 16.05.2017
(v) Agreement Nos.579 DN/2017-18 dated 28.06.2017
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has entered into various agreements with the respondents under various Agreements for the works in Chittoor District and he completed the work as per the agreements. Execution of work was entered into measurement book prepared by the respondent authorities without noticing any defects. The amount for execution of work was paid to the petitioner, but the Deposit amounts were not released even after completion of defect liability period. The petitioner has approached the respondents several times for reimbursement of the said Deposits. As the respondents have
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.