M/s. Hyderabad Bottling Company Private Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer (CT)
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-02-16. M/s. Hyderabad Bottling Company Private Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer (CT). Read the...
Judgment text
1s447 | IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) IMONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY THE HONOURABLE SRI. IUSTilCDruNNSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITI ON NO: 2078 OF 2026 Between: firl/s Hyderabad Bottrino c. orqrly prrvate Lrmrted, rep by its rvranaging Director, [r,4 r Jasti Seshagiri Rao Ofi. ruo ab, ldn, A;t'r""g;ilHyd"rabad. 500 037 ... PET|T|ONER AND 1' commerciar rax officer (cr), (presen,y known as Assistant commrssioner (ST)), Srinagar Cotony Ciicte, pun;agutta'Oiuiiion Hyderabid 2. Commercial Tax Officer (CT), punjagutta Circle, Hyderabad 3. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), punjagutta Division Hyderabad. 4 Additional commissioner (cr), Legar (FAC), office - - of rhe commissioner ot Commercial Taxes, Nampally Hyddrabid. " 5' The commissioner of raxes 1st Froor. commerciar . co.
mmerciar rax office, Near MJ Market Road, Opposite Gandhi Bhivan ttampatty, iyO"r"OrOlSOO 001 6 of Telangana. rep i1s Secretary to :tgl9 ! V Governmenr (Revenue) "-' CT_il, Commercial Taxes / State - ' Tix Departmen(. Secretarrat, HyOeraOaJ 7. State Telanglana, rep its principal . of . by. Secretary to Government, (Frnance and Planning), Secretaiiat, Hyoerabad ... RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constrtution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the 6th and 7th Respondents to refund the amount of Rs 53,46,343/- due as per the orders passed by this Hon'ble court in TREVC --- Nos250,2BO of 2009 and 89 of 2010, dated 15. 2. 2023 passed in favour of the Petitroner for the tax periods 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 along with applicable interest under Section 33-F of the APGST Act, 1957 from 15 8.
2023 till date of refund a long wrth costs lA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petit cr under Section 151 CPC praylng that rn the circumstances stated rn the affrdavrt f led in sLrpport of the petilion, the High Court may be pleased to expedrte the hearing of the \Nrrt Petrtion as Respondents have delayed the refund for the past two years. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. P. AMARNATH REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No. 1 to 6: SRI T. CHAITANYA KIRAN, AGP REPRESENTING SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR STATE TAX Counsel for the Respondent No. 7: SRI MOHAMMED HUSSAIN, GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING The Court made the followitrg:ORDER TN THE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OFTI]LANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE P. SAM KOSHY AND RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING NANDTKONDA W. P. No. 20 78 0F 2026 16. 02. 2026 Between Limited' M/s l lyderabad Bottling Company Private Rcp. by its Managing Director, Mr.
Jasti Seshagiri Rao Pctitioner AND Commercial 1'ax Officer (CT), (Plesently known as Assistant Commissioner (S1'))' Punjagutta Division, Srinagar Colony Circle, Ilyderabad and 6 othcrs . . Respoudents ORDER (pcr l{on'blc Sri . Iusticc P Sam Koshv) learned counsel tbr the Heard Mr. K. P. Amarnath Reddy, leamed Assistaut Govcrntnent petitioner, Mr. T. Chaitanya Kiran, Swaroop Oorilta' learrred Special Pleader representing Mr. GovemmentPleaderfortheStateTaxforrespondentNos. Ito6 Pleader for and Mr. Mohammed Hussain, leamed Govemment No'7' Perused the record' Finance and Planning for respondent \t- l. Ihc nratter pcnains to the pelitioner's claim fbl refund under th. ' . ,\rrrlhla I'nrclcsh (ieneral Salcs Tar Act, 1957 (tbr short 'tlrc \l)( iS'l \ct') I'he claim fol rclilnd liuctified in lavour ol- thc I on li. 0l. l()1. 1. lhe petitioner ri,aited l)ctitione lor a statut()r\ six rn()nllrs ri itlrin $lrich the dcpartntent ought Pcriotl to had nradc the rc lirnd. I lorr. 'r tr'. r.
r,hcn it was not donc lor almost tu,o and half thc pctilioDcr rvas cornpelled to frle the present writ petition -veu|s. Ibr- rrn u1. rpropriirtc \vlit ol'Mandarnus directing the respondents tci rcrle:rsc lhc nlcnl ol'r'clitnd l)a\ ( -1. )n tlrc prcvious date ol hearing, the leamed Assistant (ior clnnte nt I'lcuder lirr thc State Tax as also the leamed Assistant Cior crnnrcnt l'lcudcr lor I itrance and Planning sought tbr a rreeks' tinrc in asccrLairrirrrl tlre, paymcnt of refund to be rnade to thc I tl l()r)c I l)e 4. I oclitl . t ht'n the mattel' is taken up for hearing, Mr'. \,lolrarrrnrcd llLrssairr. lcanred Govemnrent Pleader for Finance and I'lanning inlbrrns the Court that in this case, the token for relcasc crl' rclirnd was already issued in the year 2024 and appropriate steps have been taken to ensure that the relund is crcdited to thc account of the petitioner todaf i. e. 16-02. 2026.
He has also brought the rcport receivcd through WhatsApp lrorrr the Financc Departnient where the refund has alreadv becn proccssed and in all like lihood, it would be credited to the accourlt o1'the pctitioner during the course of the day. 5. Ho'r. ver cr. what is reflected is that the alnount ol rctuncl relcased is only the plincipal arrount ol Rs. 53,46,343/-ri hcreas in ternrs of tlre statute goveming the ficld i. e. , Section -il I of the APGST Act, the would bc entitled to interest or) Petitioner thc delayed payment of refund at the rate of I% pel month i. e.. l20h per annum tbr which there is no requireurent of artl acl. judication separately required for the release of thc samc attd thc said computation of interest component also has to be done by' thc departmcnt along with the steps taken for release ol the principal artlount itself.
I-Iowever, there does not seetn to be ally good ground available with the respondents for not doing SO simultaneously when proceedings were drawn to release the pLincipal amount. Since the statute provides for payrnent of interest on thc dL-la\':',1 l'cleasirrs ol- refirnd, \Ve SL'e nO reason r,',hr tlrc pctitione r shorrld ire denicd the intcrest rvhich is otherwise rrnder 1lt,: Protcclr'd stutiite. itsell. \\ c d() n()t intcnd to keep the writ pctition penrlirrr. onl', on this cor. rnl. We lrrc inclined to disposc of thc rilit pc:titron rr itlr rr clirectiot) t() tho respondents so thr as calcr,rlntion ol'irrrclcsr on thc prirrcipal anroulrr of Rs. 53,46,343/-is conccrued liorn I 5. 0li. l0ll i. c.. liorr the diite ot'conrpletion of six nrontlrs period tirrrn l5. 0l l0l3 till toclav i. e. , I6. 02. 2026 i. e. , fbr a pcriod ol trro untl halI r crrs er:tctlr 6. I.
r't thc conrprrtation be donc forthwith and the entire interest arrount pavable hc also lclcased to thc petitiouer within a pcriod of trvo u,ct,ks. lhe ulirresuid rlircction o1'pavntcnt ol-intcrest has to be donc u itliin l pcriorl t'l tri o u,ccks lirr thc. reason tllat it ought to had bccn dorrc lrt thc respondents sitnultancously rvith the principal anroLult itscll'rr hich u,rrs bcirrg pr-ocessed firr refund. Thus, the act on thc part ol thc resporrdents in not releasing the interest Ttrinta /ic'iL, appears ttt bc deliberate act on thejr pafi, more particularly ivhcn the sti,ttutc undcr Section i3F of thc APGST Act clcarlv rnandates in this legard. We make it clear that in case if the --a aforesaidamountisnotprocessedandpaidbybothbythe -fax Departlnent as also by i'e', Commercial depaflnrents concerncd by this within a peliod ol' l5 days granted tl're Firrancc l)cpaftment Court.
theentireamountshallturthercanyintcrestofl8o%per the actually paid and said onwards till it is annutrr lrom 16. 02. 2026 16 shall be rvhich accrues beyond '02'2023 interest cornponent concemed in the department who recovcrable tiom thc otficer 15 days' l'he said thc directions within tails to cornply with State shall be borne by the no circulrstances' amourlt, undcr exchcquer disposed of' There shall be 1 The wLit petition is, accordingly, no orcler as to costs. if any' shall Conscquently, rr iscellaneous petitions pending' stand closed . JAVTAHAR REDDY SD/-M STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To (Presentl known as Assistant Tax Officer (CT), 1. The Com mercial ' tta Division, HYderabad Ci rcle, Punjagu (ST)), Srinagar Co lony Commissto ner 2'TheCommercialTaxofficer(CT),PunjaguttaCircle,Hyderabad. (CT)' Puniagutta Division' Hyderabad 3.
The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (cr)' Legal (FAc) office of rhe commissioner 4 The Additional commtssioner " ;i'8fi;;;;iri iir"i NamparrY HYderabad' Taxeg'-l"t Floor' of 5 The Commissioner ,Commercial rCommerfiiiJ3ir"Ji"fd " opposite Gandhi Bhavan' N;;r'il;i Marlet Road' Taxes / State (Revenue) CT-ll',Commercial to Government 6 The Secretary Hyderabad' stat" oi t"i'"g';n; S""t"ttriat' Tax Department, 7 The Pnncrpal Secretarv to (Finance and Planning), lelangana secreta:rat. 'Hyd"rcrob'u"Jn'unt' state of B One CC to SRI K p Al\/ARNATH REDDy, Advocate topUCl 9 lwo CCs to SRt I;WAROOP OORILLA Specral Governmenr pleader State lax Hrqh Co,rrt for rr. ,e for Stai-e-of'r"rrngill"ri,Hyderabad. [OUT] t t n' n.. " & Pla n n r ns H is h c ou rt for L-t:f i""nt rhe State of reta nsa na ? Jtlft' "; J 11 Two CD Copies 4,4 P oo I / HIGH COURT DATED:1610212026 r- 1H \ (. -) \, c 'zli ll q ii 3 + i RDER +lls". ^ T I I WP. No. 2078 ot 2026 WRIT PETITION DISPOSING OF THE WITHOUT COSTS I elaL 3l
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.