K. Mallikarjuna Rao vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Facts

The petitioner, K. Mallikarjuna Rao, a contractor, filed a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court seeking a direction to the respondents (State of Andhra Pradesh and various departments/officers) to release statutory payments of 1% CGST, 1% SGST, and 1% IT. These payments are due towards completed works under several M-Book numbers, totaling Rs. 35,27,214/-. The petitioner had been entrusted with various road construction works, which he claims to have completed. The respondents had approved the payments and recorded the progress and amounts due in the M-Books. The petitioner contended that the action of the respondents in withholding these statutory amounts was illegal and arbitrary.

Held

The Court recorded the submissions made by both the petitioner and the respondents. The respondents acknowledged that the works were completed, the final bills submitted, and the amounts due duly admitted. They further stated that funds were awaited and would be released soon. Based on these submissions, the High Court disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage. The Court directed the respondents to verify and release the payments due and payable to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. No order as to costs was made. The Court did not delve into the specific legal provisions related to GST or IT beyond acknowledging the petitioner's claim for these statutory components of payment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' action in withholding the statutory 1% CGST, 1% SGST, and 1% IT payable to the petitioner for completed works is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the amounts withheld are statutory payments due to him for completed works, which have been approved by the competent authority and recorded in the M-Books. He contended that the non-release of these funds is illegal, arbitrary, and violates his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, as well as settled legal principles. Respondents' Arguments: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the works have been completed, and the petitioner has submitted the final bills. The amounts due have been admitted. However, further funds are awaited, and upon their release, the petitioner's bills will be cleared. The respondents did not raise any specific legal contention against the petitioner's claim for the statutory amounts.