M/S.Aditya Advertising vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that since the petitioner had already submitted a representation dated 04.10.2021 (acknowledged on 22.10.2021) regarding the pending payment for the executed work, and this representation was still pending before the respondent authorities, it was appropriate to direct the respondents to address it. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim for payment or the reasons for non-payment. Instead, the operative direction was to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to verify the representation and take appropriate action or pass suitable orders expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of receiving a copy of the order. The Court found no specific GST provisions that were directly adjudicated upon in this instance, as the matter was disposed of on procedural grounds related to the pending representation.

Facts

The petitioner, a proprietorship registered with the Government of India, was awarded a work order by the 2nd respondent for Rs. 2,83,200/- (inclusive of GST) for designing, erecting, and fabricating a stall space at the TV9 Travel Expo, 2019, held from February 23rd to 24th, 2019. The petitioner claims to have successfully executed the work but has not received payment. On October 4th, 2021, the petitioner submitted a written representation to the Chief Executive Officer, Andhra Pradesh Tourism Authority, requesting the release of the outstanding amount. This representation was acknowledged on October 22nd, 2021. The petitioner's grievance in the present writ petition is that despite executing the work and submitting the representation, no payment has been made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authorities are obligated to process and release the payment due to the petitioner for the successfully executed work, considering the petitioner has submitted a representation regarding the outstanding amount. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they have fulfilled their contractual obligations by executing the work as per the work order and that the respondent authorities are unjustly withholding the payment. They further contended that their representation dated 04.10.2021, seeking release of dues, has been pending consideration without any action. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions from the respondents. The court's direction suggests that the primary issue was the pending representation and the need for the authorities to act upon it.