M/S. Trans Express Logistics vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Trans Express Logistics, filed a writ petition seeking release of Rs. 19,79,896.64/- for logistic services rendered to the Andhra Pradesh State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited (APSAIDC Ltd.) between May 2020 and October 2020. The petitioner claimed this amount comprised Rs. 10,00,091/- towards refundable security deposit and Rs. 9,79,805.64/- towards pending bill payments. The respondents, APSAIDC Ltd., stated that the performance security deposit of Rs. 49,99,952/- had been largely refunded, with Rs. 1,66,195/- adjusted towards recoverable dues for damaged stock and shortages, leaving a balance of Rs. 47/-. Regarding the bill payments, the respondents indicated that Rs. 9,79,806/- pertained to GST reimbursement, and the petitioner had not paid the GST for the relevant financial year, nor was the invoice reflected in the GST portal's GSTR-2A/2B statements or a valid GSTR-3B.

Held

The Court found that the petitioner's claim had been substantially redressed by the respondents, except for the GST amount. The respondents had refunded the majority of the security deposit, adjusting only a small portion for contractual dues. Regarding the GST amount of Rs. 9,79,806/-, the Court noted that the petitioner had not provided evidence of paying the GST for the relevant financial year, nor were the necessary GST filings compliant with the GSTN portal requirements for input tax credit. The Court reasoned that the GST reimbursement was contingent upon the petitioner furnishing requisite particulars and establishing payment of the input tax. Therefore, the Court held that the petitioner was at liberty to pursue the GST claim independently before the appropriate authority. Since the respondents had paid all amounts due, other than the GST which was to be claimed by the petitioner, the Court concluded that no further orders were required in the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily withheld the approved bill amounts payable to the petitioner for logistic services rendered, in violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that the respondents illegally withheld approved bill amounts totaling Rs. 19,79,896.64/-, comprising Rs. 10,00,091/- as refundable security deposit and Rs. 9,79,805.64/- as pending bill payments, for logistic services provided. They argued this action was arbitrary and violative of constitutional rights, seeking immediate release of the payment with interest. Respondents' argument: The respondents argued that the claim was not automatically payable and was subject to contractual adjustments and verification. They stated that the security deposit had been substantially refunded, with a small portion adjusted against contractually agreed recoverable dues. For the GST component, they asserted that the petitioner had not paid the GST for the relevant period, and the necessary GST filings (GSTR-1, GSTR-2A/2B, GSTR-3B) were not in order, preventing input tax credit claims. They indicated the petitioner could pursue the GST claim with the relevant authority.