2026 (6) TMI 742

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... PER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO: The petitioner herein is a contractor who executes work contracts for other contractors as well as for the Government institutions. One M/s. Sri Venkateswara Constructions had obtained certain road work and other construction contracts from M/s. Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (herein referred to as "M/s. APIIC") and had subcontracted these contracts to the petitioner herein. In the years 2021-22 & 2022-23, the petitioner had executed these contracts and had received consideration for the execution of such contracts along with GST @12%. Subsequently, demands were raised against the petitioner, by the GST authorities, on the ground that the appropriate rate of GST is 18%....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....directed M/s. APIIC to reimburse the differential rate of tax, along with the interest, to M/s. Sri Venkateswara Constructions. M/s. APIIC had reimbursed an amount of Rs.1,54,72,958/- as the differential rate of tax against the claim of M/s. Sri Venkateswara Constructions for a sum of Rs.1,82,56,578/-. The difference between these two figures is in dispute. 4. M/s. Sri Venkateswara Constructions, has again approached this Court by way of the W.P.No.16833 of 2025 contending that it was entitled to reimbursement of the differential amount and also for a direction to set aside the attachment of the bank accounts of M/s. Sri Venkateswara Constructions and for a further direction to the 1st respondent therein to refund a sum of Rs.75,32,179/-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ateswara Constructions has not reimbursed the differential amount of 6% despite receipt of amounts from M/s. APIIC. It is contended by Sri G. Narendra Chetty, learned counsel for the petitioner that M/s. Sri Venkateswara Constructions had remitted the entire amount received from M/s. APIIC to discharge its tax liability. To the mind of this Court, the petitioner in W.P.Nos.21869 & 22017 of 2025 is entitled to the same benefit and consideration as M/s. Sri Venkateswara Constructions, in W.P.No.22663 of 2023. This would require M/s. Sri Venkateswara Constructions to reimburse the differential amount of Rs.63,88,598/- claimed by the petitioner in W.P.Nos.21869 & 22017 of 2025. 9. In the circumstances, M/s. Sri Venkateswara Constructions wou....