Softline Advertising PVT LTD vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The Court held that Respondent No. 2 (Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes Cooperative Finance Corporation) is solely responsible for the payment of the advertisement dues. This finding was based on the evidence presented, including the Work Order dated 27.12.2018 and G.O.Ms.No.101 dated 14.08.2019, particularly paragraph 7(n) of the G.O., which explicitly states that Respondent No. 2 alone will be responsible for advertisement issues and payments. The Court found the averment made by Respondent No. 2 in its counter-affidavit, suggesting that Respondent No. 3 was liable for the payment, to be incorrect and superfluous. The ratio decidendi is that contractual obligations and government orders clearly assigning responsibility for payments must be adhered to, and parties cannot unilaterally shift liability without proper justification or amendment. Respondent No. 2 was directed to settle the admitted claim within four weeks. The issue of GST itself was not directly decided as the dispute centered on the liability to pay the admitted amount.

Facts

The petitioner, likely an advertising agency, filed a writ petition challenging the non-payment of dues for advertisement services. The dispute involved the responsibility for payment between Respondent No. 2 (Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes Cooperative Finance Corporation) and Respondent No. 3 (Information and Public Relations Department). The petitioner relied on a Work Order dated 27.12.2018 and G.O.Ms.No.101 dated 14.08.2019, which indicated that Respondent No. 2 alone would be responsible for advertisement payments. Respondent No. 2's counter-affidavit suggested Respondent No. 3 was liable, which the Court found to be incorrect.

Key Issues

1. Whether Respondent No. 2 (Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes Cooperative Finance Corporation) is solely responsible for the payment of advertisement dues, as indicated by the Work Order dated 27.12.2018 and G.O.Ms.No.101 dated 14.08.2019, thereby rendering its claim that Respondent No. 3 is liable incorrect? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the Work Order and G.O.Ms.No.101 clearly stipulated that Respondent No. 2 was responsible for advertisement payments. They highlighted paragraph 7(n) of the G.O. which specifically assigns responsibility for advertisement issues to Respondent No. 2. Revenue/State's arguments: Respondent No. 2, in its counter-affidavit, had stated that Respondent No. 3 should pay the amount. However, during the proceedings, Respondent No. 2's counsel drew the Court's attention to a letter addressed to Respondent No. 3 regarding payment, implicitly suggesting a dispute or a shift in responsibility. The Court ultimately found Respondent No. 2's assertion that Respondent No. 3 was liable to be incorrect.