Katta Venakta Ramana Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Held
The Court held that the issue in the present writ petition is identical to the one decided in W.P.No.30041 of 2021. By referring to its previous order dated 04.03.2022 in the said writ petition, the Court found that the petitioner is entitled to the refund of deposit amounts. The reasoning was based on the principle that once works are completed as per the terms and conditions of the agreements and the finalized bill amounts have been paid, the deposit amounts should be refunded. The Court directed the respondents to refund all deposit amounts to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to refund EMD, GST, and tender deposit amounting to Rs. 12,61,575/-. These amounts were collected by the respondents for works undertaken by the petitioner under various agreements. The petitioner contended that the respondents' action in withholding these deposits was illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner relied on a previous order of the same High Court dated 04.03.2022 in W.P.No.30041 of 2021, which dealt with a similar issue. In that prior case, the Court had directed the refund of all deposit amounts after the completion of works and payment of finalized bills.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondents are legally obligated to refund the EMD, GST, and tender deposit amounts to the petitioner, considering the completion of works and payment of finalized bills? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that the issue in the present writ petition is identical to that decided in W.P.No.30041 of 2021. They relied on the order dated 04.03.2022 in the aforementioned writ petition, which directed the refund of all deposit amounts upon completion of works and payment of finalized bills. The petitioner contended that since the facts and circumstances are similar, the same relief should be granted. The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.5429 of 2022
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for irrigation appearing for the respondents. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not refunding the EMD, GST and tender deposit to a tune of Rs.12,61,575/- taken by the respondents for the works undertaken by the petitioner under various agreements as illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar circumstances, this Court by order dated 04.03.2022 disposed of W.P.No.30041 of 2021, wherein it is held as under: “In the light of the above and in view of the fact that as the respondent authorities have already paid the finalized and approved bill amounts to the petitioner after completion of the works as per the terms and conditions of the agreements, the petitioner is entitled to receive the entire deposit amounts, the respondents are directed to refund all deposit amounts to the petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a cop
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.