M V Subba Rao vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the respondents' action in not releasing the payment for the executed works was unjust and not tenable, given the undisputed execution of the works by the petitioner and the non-payment of bills. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's entitlement to the due and payable amount. While finding the respondents' inaction to be unjustified, the Court was inclined to grant time for payment. Therefore, the Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to make the payment of the amount due and payable to the petitioner, after effecting statutory deductions, as expeditiously as possible, but at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The Court also noted that the petitioner was free to raise a claim for interest before the appropriate forum if advised. No specific provision of the GST Act was directly discussed or applied in the decision, as the core of the dispute revolved around the release of contractual payments for executed works.

Facts

The petitioner, M.V. Subba Rao, filed a writ petition challenging the respondents' action of not releasing bills for works executed under fifteen different agreements, totaling Rs. 31,59,703/-. These agreements were executed between 2017 and 2019. The petitioner contended that the works were completed as per agreement conditions and measurements were recorded, yet the payments were withheld, causing prejudice and irreparable loss. The respondents, represented by the State of Andhra Pradesh and various departments, were directed to respond. The 6th respondent provided written instructions stating that the work under Agreement No. 1061/18-19 was completed, and the first and final bill submission was in progress. Payment was contingent on the Government releasing the BRO (Budget Release Order) through the head office.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' action in not releasing the bills for works executed by the petitioner, amounting to Rs. 31,59,703/-, is illegal and arbitrary, thereby violating the petitioner's lawful entitlement to payment? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the works were fully executed and measurements recorded, entitling them to the payment of bills. Withholding these bills caused significant prejudice and irreparable loss. Respondents' contention: The respondents, through written instructions from the 6th respondent, indicated that the work was completed as per agreement conditions. The delay in payment was attributed to the process of bill submission and the need for Government approval and release of funds (BRO) through the head office. They did not dispute the execution of the work or the amount claimed.