HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 47096 of 2013 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(i). Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent authorities to refund the amount of VAT amounting to Rs.10,22,410/- deducted by the Respondent No.4 for the financial year 2009-10 with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. (ii). Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent authorities to pay the amount of VAT from 12th running bill onwards with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. which was stopped by Respondent No.4 in the interest of justice. (iii). Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of VAT/Trade Tax (except earth work) in question. (iv). Issue any other further writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv). Award the costs of petition to the petitioners." 3. It appears that an agreement has been entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No.2-Nagar Nigam. According to the petitioner, under the agreement, the petitioner is entitled for payment of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashish Kumar Singh, Vishal Mittal Counsel for Respondent(s) : Kartikeya Saran, R.D. Mishra M/S Naresh Construction Company And Anr .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) additional VAT. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that under the agreement, the petitioner is entitled for the aforesaid amount and therefore, in view of the said fact, the petitioner claims that the petitioner is entitled to refund of Rs.10,22,410/- deducted by the respondent No.4 for the financial year 2009- 10 towards VAT with an interest at the rate of 18%. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents No.2 to 4 contending inter alia that for construction of big drain at Etah road (National Highway) (Byepass Chauraha) from Gadrana Minor to Zafri Drain, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No.2-Nagar Nigam, Aligarh on 02.12.2008. Vide this agreement, the petitioner agreed to do the construction work on the payment of Rs.2,56,09,924/-. It has been further stated that perusal of the agreement shows that all the additions, deposits to be made etc. have been detailed out and agreed upon between the parties and there is no mention of payment of additional VAT upon the agreed amount by the petitioner and therefore, the respondents are not liable to pay the additional VAT under the agreement. 6. The dispute raised by the petitioner is beyond the scope of agreement and the petitioner is entitled for additional VAT. 7. Since the respondents dispute their liability to pay the additional VAT inasmuch as according to them, under the agreement, they were not liable to pay the additional VAT, therefore, it is a case where the respondents do not admit the liability of payment of additional VAT and the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get the additional VAT under the agreement or not, is a question of fact which cannot be determined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it requires appreciation of evidence. 8. Since in the present case, the petitioner alleges that under the agreement, the petitioner is entitled to receive the additional VAT whereas according to the respondents, they are not liable to pay the additional VAT, does not cover under the agreement. Thus, it is also evident that the nature of dispute relates to interpretation of the agreement which can be determined on the basis of evidence and other material on record in view of the fact that the WRIC No. 47096 of 2013 2 amount claimed is disputed by the respondents and therefore, this Court cannot grant the reliefs as prayed for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to cost. However, it is open to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy available in law if so advised for recovery towards the amount against the respondents. September 16, 2025 SS WRIC No. 47096 of 2013 3 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad