M/S.Aditya Advertising vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Held
The Court noted that the petitioner had already submitted a representation dated 04.10.2021 (acknowledged on 22.10.2021) to the respondent authorities regarding the pending payment for the executed work. Since this representation was pending consideration, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to verify the said representation and take appropriate action or pass necessary orders expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of receiving a copy of the order. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim for payment but focused on ensuring the representation was addressed.
Facts
The petitioner, a proprietorship registered under GST, was awarded a work order by the 2nd respondent for printing and supply of 500 pen drives with the Andhra Pradesh Tourism Authority logo for Rs. 2,06,500/- inclusive of GST. The work was to be executed from February 23rd to 24th, 2019, in Hyderabad. The petitioner claims to have successfully completed the work but has not received payment. A written representation was submitted to the Chief Executive Officer, Andhra Pradesh Tourism Authority, on October 4, 2021, which was acknowledged on October 22, 2021, requesting the release of the due amount. The grievance in the writ petition is that despite the representation and successful execution of work, no payment has been made.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondent authorities are liable to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 2,06,500/- (inclusive of GST) to the petitioner for the executed work order, as per the terms of the work order and the petitioner's representation dated 04.10.2021. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they have successfully executed the work as per the work order and submitted a representation for payment, which remains unaddressed. They seek payment of the amount due. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions from the respondents. The Court's direction implies that the representation was pending consideration.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
WRIT PETITION No.922 of 2022 ORDER:-
Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.Srinivas, learned Government Pleader for Finance and Labour for the respondents.
According to the petitioner, it is a proprietorship and registered with the Government of India vide Registration bearing No. 37CMWPM3520P226. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent herein issued a work order in favour of the petitioner for an amount of Rs.2,06,500/- inclusive of GST for Printing and Supply of 500 No’s Credit Card type 8GB pen drive with document fully loaded with Andhra Pradesh Tourism Authority logo held from 23rd to 24th February, 2019 at Hyderabad.
The essence of the case of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that, despite successfully executing the said work, the respondent authorities are not paying the amount due to the petitioner herein. It is further stated by the learned counsel that the petitioner herein submitted a written representation to the Chief Executive Officer, Andhra Pradesh Tourism Authority on 04.10.2021 (acknowledged on 22.10.2021), requesting for r
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.