APHC010219792019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION Nos.9702, 9667, 9690, 9706, 9707, 9708, 9709 & 9710 of 2019 WRIT PETITION NO: 9702/2019 Between: 1. M/S. RAGHAVENDRA PRESTRESS PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,, TUNGABHADRA, RAILWAY YEARD, MANTRALAYAM ROAD, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, COMMERCIAL TAXES. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH HNO.5-59, BANDAR ROAD, SPRING VALLEY APARTMENTS, RAJIV BHARGAV COLONY RD, EDUPUGALLU, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH 521151. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PADMAVATHIPURAM, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH 517501 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to pass an order or direction or writ, more preferably a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Appellant Deputy, Commissioner of Commercial tax Tirupati in not considering the issue 2 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.9702 of 2019 & batch of payment of interest due on refunds liable to be paid vide his order bearing reference no. Appeal No.28/2017-18 dated 29-03-2018 in relation to taxes on free supply items as illegal and contrary to the rights of the petitioner contained in APGST 1957 and specially of Section 33-E thereof and consequently direct the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Tirupati to consider and adjudicate on the issue of interest due on Rs 17,40,292/-relating to the assessment year 1999-2000 APGST act, 1957 of the petitioner's assessment from 3t-08-2006 being the date on which Rule 50 application was preferred by the petitioner till the date of actual payment IA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to primit the petitioner to place on record the consequential order of the Commercial Tax officer,-I (FAC), Adoni dated 06-09-2018 on the record of the above writ petition as an additional material paper and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To implead Commericial Tax Officer-I (FAC),Adoni (Proposed Respondent) as the 4th respondent in the above Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to permit the Petitioner to modify the prayer in the above Writ Petition FROM “May be pleased to pass an order or direction or writ more preferably a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Appellant Deputy Commissioner of Commercial tax Tirupati in not considering the issue of payment of interest due on refunds liable to be paid vide his order bearing reference no Appeal No 28/2017-18 dated 29-03-2018 in relation to taxes on free supply items as illegal and contrary to the rights of the petitioner contained in APGST 1957 and specially of Section 33E thereof and consequently direct the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Tirupati to consider and adjudicate on the issue of interest due on Rs 17 40 292/relating to the assessment year 19992000 APGST act 1957 of the petitioners assessment from 3t082006 being the date on which Rule 50 application was preferred by the petitioner till the date of actual payment and 3 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.9702 of 2019 & batch pass such other further orders or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. TO “May be pleased to pass an order or direction or writ more preferably a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Appellant Deputy Commissioner of Commercial tax Tirupati in not considering the issue of payment of interest due on refunds liable to be paid vide his order bearing reference no Appeal No 28/2017-18 dated 29-03-2018 and the consequential order of the Commercial Tax Officer, Adoni in not paying the interest due on such refunds vide his order dated 06-09-2018 in relation to taxes on free supply items as illegal and contrary to the rights of the petitioner contained in APGST 1957 and specially of Section 33E thereof and consequently direct the Respondents, especially R3 and R4 to consider and adjudicate on the issue of interest due on Rs 17,40,292/- relating to the assessment year 1999-2000 APGST, Act 1957 of the Petitioner’s assessment from 30-8-2006 being the date on which Rule 50 application was preferred by the petitioner till the date of actual payment and pass such other further orders or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A SRINATH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX (AP) Date of Reserved: 15.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 24.12.2025 Date of Upload: 24.12.2025 4 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.9702 of 2019 & batch The Court made the following Common Order: (per Hon‟ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner, which is in the business of executing works contracts, including works contracts for South Central Railways, had suffered various orders of assessment, passed under the A.P.G.S.T. Act as well as C.S.T. Act, for the period 1997-1998 to 2001-2002. The details of the assessment periods as well as dates of assessment and subsequent proceedings are contained in the table set out below: Writ Petition No. Rule 50 Application No (16-01-2006) Rule 50 Application Date CTO Order (Rule 50 rejected) Refund Application made pursuant to SC Order CTO Order (Refund Application rejected) ADC Order on Appeal (Remanded) CTO Order on Remand 9667 of 2019 RPP/14/ST/1429 16-01-2006 31-08-2006 07-08-2014 10-03-2015 11-01-2016 10-08-2017 9690 of 2019 RPP/14/ST/1427 16-01-2006 31-08-2006 07-08-2014 10-03-2015 11-01-2016 10-08-2017 9702 of 2019 RPP/14/ST/1428 16-01-2006 31-08-2006 07-08-2014 10-03-2015 11-01-2016 10-08-2017 9706 of 2019 RPP/14/ST/1424 16-01-2006 31-08-2006 07-08-2014 10-03-2015 11-01-2016 10-08-2017 9707 of 2019 RPP/14/ST/1425 16-01-2006 31-08-2006 07-08-2014 10-03-2015 11-01-2016 10-08-2017 9708 of 2019 RPP/14/ST/1426 16-01-2006 31-08-2006 07-08-2014 10-03-2015 11-01-2016 10-08-2017 9709 of 2019 RPP/14/ST/1433 16-01-2006 31-08-2006 07-08-2014 10-03-2015 11-01-2016 10-08-2017 9710 of 2019 RPP/14/ST/1432 16-01-2006 31-08-2006 07-08-2014 10-03-2015 11-01-2016 10-08-2017 2. After the aforesaid assessments, the South Central Railways, on the basis of a letter addressed to the South Central Railways by the Assessing Authority, sought recovery of a sum of Rs.74,98,420/-, by way of a Notice, 5 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.9702 of 2019 & batch dated 20.08.2003, from the petitioner. It was the contention of the South Central Railways that sales tax was paid on items, which had been supplied by the South Central Railways free of cost, to the petitioner, for execution of the contract, and that, such sales tax was not payable. Aggrieved by the said Notice, the petitioner moved W.P.No.20117 of 2003, before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, against the South Central Railways and the Commercial Tax Officer concerned. This Writ Petition was disposed of, by way of an Order, dated 29.12.2003, directing the petitioner to file an explanation to the said Notice within two (02) weeks and a further direction to the South Central Railways to take a decision as per Law. Thereafter, the South Central Railways, issued a letter, dated 06.05.2005, informing the petitioner that the excess payment of sales tax would be adjusted by adjusting the sales tax amount, payable to the petitioner, against the remaining bills. The petitioner challenged this decision, of South Central Railways, by approaching the erstwhile High Court, by way of W.P.No.15952 of 2005. This Writ Petition came to be dismissed, on 05.10.2005, with liberty being given to the petitioner to avail remedies, as may be available, in Law to seek refund/recovery of amounts said to have been paid by the petitioner towards sales tax under a mistaken impression. At that stage, the petitioner, filed applications, under Rule 50 of the A.P.G.S.T. Rules, contending that the petitioner had paid taxes even on free supply of goods given by South Central Railways and the tax paid on such goods should be excluded from the 6 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.9702 of 2019 & batch assessment. These applications were all filed, on 16.01.2006. The said applications were rejected by the Assessing Authority, on 31.08.2006. 3. After the rejection of the applications, filed under Rule 50, the petitioner again moved the erstwhile High Court, by way of W.P.No.292 of 2007 & batch, against the orders of rejection, dated 31.08.2006. The Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court, by a Judgment, dated 03.10.2012, had dismissed the Writ Petitions, on the ground that, the applications under Rule 50, had been moved with great delay and on the question of whether such refund could be granted. 4. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment, in W.P.No.292 of 2007 & batch, moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by way of S.L.P. Nos.10244-10252/2013. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by way of interlocutory orders in these proceedings, had observed that the petitioner could file fresh applications, before the Competent Authority, for considering deletion of the turnover, relating to free supply of goods to South Central Railways. The petitioner, by virtue of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, filed such applications, before the Assessing Authority and the same came to be dismissed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, had thereafter, granted liberty to the petitioner to file Appeals against the said orders of rejection and these Appeals also came to be filed. The Appellate Authority had initially remanded the matter back to the Assessing Authority for reconsideration of the rejection order. After some more proceedings, the matter ultimately resulted, in an 7 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.9702 of 2019 & batch Order, dated 06.09.2018, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer – I (FAC), Adoni, wherein, the turnover relating to free supply of goods was deleted from the assessments and certain amounts of tax were found to have been paid in excess. 5. This Court is also informed that the said amounts, which were declared as excess on payment of taxes, were refunded to the petitioner in October, 2018 itself. 6. The petitioner has now approached this Court, by way of the present set of Writ Petitions. 7. Heard Sri A. Srinath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. A. V. Sai Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes appearing for the respondents. 8. Sri A. Srinath, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the taxes refunded. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner had moved an application for refund, on 16.01.2006 and the interest would have to be calculated from that day on the excess taxes, paid by the petitioner and which were refunded to the petitioner in October, 2018. It is further contended that, even if such a date is not to be taken into account, the application of the petitioner, dated 07.08.2014, would have to be taken as the date of application for refund. In this application, the 8 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.9702 of 2019 & batch petitioner sought refund of amounts wrongly paid to the Department, on the basis of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that, payment of interest would arise only, in terms of the provisions of the A.P.G.S.T. Act and relies upon Sections 33, 33-A & 33-E and that, no interest is payable at all as the refunds should be made within a period of six (06) months from the date on which the refund arose out of an Order. 10. Sri A. Srinath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner Vs. Mohan Lal1 as well as the judgment of the High Court of Delhi, dated 28.10.2025, in the case of Gameloft Software Private Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax Range – 152 & Anr. 2 . Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend, on the basis of the aforesaid judgments, that the State cannot behave like a private party as the responsibility of ensuring that a citizen is not put to loss, on account of technical pleas that could be raised by the Government Agencies. He would submit that the State having enjoyed the benefit of the money wrongfully paid by the petitioner, cannot refuse to pay interest, on such wrongful payment of money. 1 009 INSC 1209 2 2025: DHC:9495– DB. 9 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.9702 of 2019 & batch Consideration of the Court: 11. The right of the petitioner to claim refund of tax and interest on such refund, if there is a delay in refunding the tax, can be traced to Sections 33, 33-A & 33-E of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) which are extracted below: “33. Refunds:--- The assessing authority or the licensing authority, as the case may be, shall refund the tax or the licence fees, if any, paid, provisionally by an assessee or licensee for any particular period, if it is found to be in excess of the tax or the licence fees payable by him for the said period, or at the option of the assessee or licensee, adjust such excess towards any tax or licence fees due in respect of any other period: Provided that the assessing or licensing authority, as the case may be, may first apply the excess paid in respect of any period towards the recovery of any amount, in respect of which a notice of demand may have been issued, and shall then refund the balance, if any. 33-A. Form of claim for refund and limitation:---(1) Every claim for refund under Section 33 shall be made by the assessee or licensee in such form and verified in such manner as may be prescribed, on or after the date on which the tax or the licence fees in respect of which the claim is made was directed to be refunded. (2). No such claim shall be allowed unless it is made within three years from the date specified in sub-section (1). 33-E. Interest on delayed refunds:--- (1) If the assessing authority or the licensing authority does not grant the refund within [six months] from the date on which the claim for refund is made by the assessee or licensee under section 33-A, the State Government shall pay the assessee or licensee simple interest at [twelve percent] per annum on the amount directed to be refunded from the date immediately following the expiry of the period of [six months] aforesaid to the date of the order granting the refund. Explanation:--- If the delay in granting the refund within the period of [six months] aforesaid is attributable to the assessee or licensee, whether wholly or in part, the period of the delay attributable to him shall be excluded from the period for which interest is payable. 10 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.9702 of 2019 & batch (2) Where any question arises as to the period to be excluded for the purposes of calculation of interest under the provisions of this Section, such question shall be determined by the [Commissioner of Commercial Taxes] whose decision shall be final.” 12. Section 33 of the Act states that the Assessing Authority should refund any tax, found to be in excess of the tax that was payable by the dealer, for the period under assessment. The dealer could also inform the Assessing Authority that the excess tax could be adjusted against any other tax payable by the dealer. 13. Section 33-A of the Act, states that the dealer is also entitled to move an application for refund of tax. This application can be moved on or after the date, on which the tax in respect of which the claim is being made, is directed to be refunded. Section 33-E of the Act, stipulates that, any application made for refund of tax should be cleared and the refund should be paid out within six (06) months, from the date on which the claim for refund is made. In the event of any delay beyond the six month period, the dealer would be entitled to interest @ 12% for the period between the expiry of six (06) months, after the filing of the claim till the refund is given. 14. In the present cases, the petitioner became entitled to a refund only after the Commercial Tax Officer, had passed an Order, dated 06.09.2018, on the application made by the petitioner under Rule 50. Thereafter, the refund amount is said to have been paid in October, 2018 itself. If it is to be held that the Order passed under Rule 50 itself gave rise to a refund, the Assessing 11 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.9702 of 2019 & batch Authority, at the earliest, had a period of six (06) months for making the said payment. Since the refund was made in October, 2018 within a month of the Order, dated 06.09.2018, there is no delay, which would attract interest @ 12% p.a., as stipulated under Section 33-E of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, 1957. 15. Sri A. Srinath, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, the application for refund was actually made, after the Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had been passed and as such, there is a delay in refund, which would entitle the petitioner for interest. This Court is unable to accept this contention, in the face of the language of Sections 33 & 33-E of the Act. The starting point for making any payment, on the ground of refund, would arise only after an Order of Assessment, gives rise to a refund. In the present cases, such a situation would arise, only upon the passing of the Order of Rectification, under Rule 50, on 06.09.2018. Since the refund had been made in October, 2018 itself, there is no delay, which would attract interest under Section 33-E of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, 1957. 16. For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the present set of Writ Petitions. 17. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed.There shall be no order as to costs. 12 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.9702 of 2019 & batch As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Date:24.12.2025. KPV 13 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.9702 of 2019 & batch 1 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION Nos.9702, 9667, 9690, 9706, 9707, 9708, 9709 & 9710 of 2019 (per Hon‟ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 24.12.2025 KPV