M/S Zara Construction vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Held
The Court directed respondent no. 5, the distribution company, to verify the petitioner's bills in light of the internal communications presented. Respondent no. 5 was ordered to take steps for the sanction and disbursement of the payment. The petitioner was to communicate a certified copy of the order to respondent no. 5. Within three weeks of this communication, respondent no. 5 was to either proceed with the payment or inform the petitioner of the reasons for non-payment, specifically detailing any dispute raised regarding any part or the whole of the outstanding amount. The Court clarified that failure to indicate a clear dispute would be considered a violation of its directions. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
Facts
The petitioner, M/S Zara Construction, sought a direction from the Allahabad High Court for the immediate release of Rs. 25,86,657/- along with applicable Goods and Services Tax. The petitioner claimed this amount was outstanding for work done for the distribution company, respondent no. 5. To substantiate their claim, the petitioner referred to internal communications dated March 25, 2026, September 13, 2019, and May 12, 2020. The State, represented by Additional Chief Standing Counsel, and respondent no. 5, the distribution company, contended that the petitioner's bills required verification. The Court considered these submissions in the writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should direct the immediate release of payment of Rs. 25,86,657/- along with applicable GST to the petitioner, considering the petitioner's reliance on internal communications demonstrating an outstanding amount and the respondents' contention that bills need verification? (Question of mixed law and fact) Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that internal communications clearly showed the outstanding amount and prayed for its immediate release. The petitioner relied on the internal communications dated March 25, 2026, September 13, 2019, and May 12, 2020, as evidence of the debt. Revenue/State and Respondent No. 5: Contended that the petitioner's bills required verification before payment could be processed. No specific authorities, circulars, or precedents were cited by the respondents in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 15962 of 2026 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.
Mr. Bashisth Narain Pandey, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client did the work for the distribution company. Prayer is for direction to immediately release payment of Rs. 25,86,657/- alongwith applicable goods and services tax, to his client. He refers to internal communications dated 25th March, 2026, 13th September, 2019 and 12th May, 2020 (disclosed in that order) for demonstration that said amount is outstanding for payment to his client.
Mr. Raj Mohan Upadhyay, learned advocate Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appears on behalf of State. Mr. Shrawan Kumar Tripathi, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 5 (the distribution company). He submits, petitioner's bills need to be verified.
Petitioner has demonstrated from internal communications, there is outstanding of the amount mentioned in prayer (A). Respondent no. 5 is directed to verify petitioner's bills in context of aforesaid communications and take steps for sanction and disbursement of the payment. Petitio
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 Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.