The High Court · 2025

Judgment

3. 4.

5. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of tndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toS issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not refunding excess amount of tax lying to the credit of the petitioner even after expiry of more than 3 years from the date of passing the assessment order dated 17-01-2022 for the assessment year 2015-16 under TVAT ACT 2005 as illegal, arbitrary, high-handed and declare the petitioner is entitled for refund of Rs.2,17,54,947l- along with applicable interest till the date of payment, in terms of Section 38(1Xb) and Section 3g(6) of TVAT Act, 2005 S I L' l;x, Ii,{i I l.l, * li r # t, {F I I I I t,l'lilrl"If Il'Ir Il:llr * It: lI II?lr s, I ! I'f it # I I I ! I i I Ili Ilr+!r* I 1 i I!i ;, ! I l I ii'+ if# il-il i+'it* :r I *i # '* JS f , i i $ t t lA 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 To dlrect the 1st respondent to forthwith initiate the refund process of the excess amount of tax lying; to the credit of the petitioner in terms of the assessment order dated 17-01-2022 for the assessment year 2015-16 under TVAT ACT 2005, pending disposal of the Writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt. V. SIDDHARTH REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRt SWAROOP OORILLA , SPECIAL GOVT PLEADER FOR STATE TAX The Court made the following: ORDER 'i * '+ * 'i s ,f + + # f t t I I I I It I l i ,, i i 1 : i i I I : t t * + {h t {i Page I of4 THE HONOI'RABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSIIY ,tf[ID THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDAL/\ CIIAI"APATHI RAO Writ Petition No.264L4 of 2o.25 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justie P.SAM KOS,Ifi) The instant Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of ttre Constitution of India praying tlle Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction by declaring tJre action ! of respondent No.1 in not refunding excess amount of tax lyrng to the credit of petitioner even after expiry of more than 3 years from the date of passing the assessrnent order dated 17.Ol.?{)22 for the Assessment Year 2015-16 under Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2OO5 as illegal, arbitrary, high-handed; and to declare that petitioner herein is entitled for refund of Rs.2,17,54,947 l- atons with applicable interest till the date of payment, in terms of Section 38(1)(b) and Section 38(6) of the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2OO5 (for short, sthe TTIAT Act'f .

2. Heard Mr.V. Siddharth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; a1d Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Governnient Pl,eader for State Tar, for the respondents. P?€.ezof4

3. The undisputed averments as also the instructions that have been received by the respondent-Department is that the petitioner herein is entitled for refund of excess VAT tax collected for the aforesaid assessment period to the tune of Rs.2,59,8O,627 /- along with applicable rate of interest in terms of Section 38(lxb) and Section 38(6) of the TVAT Act.

4. Though the assessment order was passed as early as on L7.O1.2O22, where initially there was an excess tax shown to have been collected to the extent of Rs.2,59,80,627 /-, bur. subsequently the said amount stood restricted to Rs.2,17,54,947 l- after rectification / clarifrcation.

5. On the previous date of hearing, this Bench had directed the learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, appearing for the respondents, to seek instructions with regard to inaction on the part of respondent-authorities in making refund of excess tax to the petitioner.

6. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearrng, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, appearing for the respondents, submitted before the Court a copy of the cornmunication dated ll.Oa.2O25, addressed by the Joint Comrnilsioner (ST), punjagutta Page 3 of4 I I i Division, Hyderabad to the Commissioner of State Tax' Hyderabad' Telangana, accepting that the petitioner herein is entitled for a refund of Rs.2,17,54 ,g47 l- (Rupees TWo Crores Seventeen Lat<trs Fifty Four ThousandNineHundredandForty-Sevenonly).Hefurthersubmitted that the matter is now placed before the Commissioner of State Tax' Hyderabad for necessa4r approval and orders' t I

7. Given tl.e aforesaid factual matrix which is undisputed by either side, we do not intend to keep the instant Writ Petition pending any further. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition at ttris juncture by directing respondent No.4 to ensure that the entire refirnd amount ispaidtopetitionerforthwithwithinanouterlimitofforty-five(45) days. It is further directed that petitioner herein shall also be entitled to interest on the entire refund alnount in terms of proviso to section 33(6) of the TVAT Act, 2OO5 from the date the amount fell due to the petitioner till the date of actual payment is made' It is made clear that tl.e instructions so issued by this Court shall also be adhered to by tJ:e Department of Finance, State of Telangana' failing which this Court would be compelled to also impose penal interest on the refund amount due to ttre Petitioner' Page 4 of4

8. With these observations, ttre Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

9. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand //TRUE COPY// SD/-M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G / SECTIO N OFFICER closed. To, 1 2 3 4 5 6. 7 8 o BM BS s \ t I '+ # + * t * It, * + j' + i I I I t i I l I I I I t I I i i i + # Jt * f ,,i & f + t= HIGH COURT DATED 15t09t2025 ; I ORDER WP.No.2G414 of 2O2S I r' 03 ELi 20tr 1f.(' () I:-^ .. !) F'Arc t iE'') .t * ./' /.'..i,;' ;.L/.) * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS ,+ # f + *' ;f 1i h ',, # \\ ,{ l I