WP/13503/2025 of M/s ICICI Bank LIMITED Vs The Assistant Commissioner (CT) on 20 January 2026

1. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Audit Commercial Taxes Department, Begumpet Division, Hyderabad - 500 016

2. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Telangana Commercial Tax Department, C.T Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad 500 001

3. The State of Telangana, Through the Principal Secretary to Government, (Commercial Tax Department), Telangana Secretariat Hyderabad - 500022

4. The Deputy Commissioner (ST), STU-2, CommercialTaxes Department, Begumpet Division, Hyderabad-s0O01 6.

5. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Telangana, BR Ambedkar Secretariat, Hyderabad. i R 4 and R 5 impleaded as per Court Order, dated 20.0L2026 vide l.A.No.2 ot 2O25 in W.P.No.13503 ot 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 direct the flespondents to issue refund Sanction Order in Form CST lX and to further proc:ess refund of excess tax paid amounting to lNR. 27,73,1161' to lhe bank accou nt of the Petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI CHANDA SUMANTH, rep., . SRI LAKSHMI KUMARAN SRIDHARAN counser ror the Respond""" *3*[fi fliSit'#Iff t Jioi. " ro* srArE r Counsel forthe Respondent No.s : SRI MOHAMMED HUSSA|N, Gp FOR FTNANCE &PLANNING The Court malde the following: OROER

TN THE HIGH COURT F'OR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHT RAO W.P.No. 1 oF 202s 20.01.2026 Between: M/s ICICI Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager Mr. p.Nagaraju ...Petitioner AND The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Audit Commercial Taxes Department, Begumpet Division, Hyderabad - 500 016 and 4 others ..Respondents ORDER' (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice p.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. chanda Sumanth, learned counsel representing IWs Lakshmi Kumaran sridharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Swaroop oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for the State Tax for respondent Nos.l to 4 and Mr. Mohammed Hussain, learned Government pleader for Finance and Planning for respondent No.5. perused the record, -I- -- -+-.-- \

2. 'fhe present is a writ petition 'filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directirrg the respondents to issue refund sanction order for an amount of Rs.27,73,1161- to the petitioner under the provisions of the Teltrngana value Added rax Act, 2005 (for short .the TVAT Act')- In addition, the petitioner has also prayed for payable interest in terms of Section 38(6) of the TVAT Act for the period of delay in making the refund.

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Special Government Pleader produced a document dated 07.01 .20')-6 reflecting it to be bill for refund of revenue bills. The amount of refund claimed by the petitioner amounting to Rs.27,73,1 l6l-is shown to have been approved by the department concernecl and has been sent to the treabury for further action so far as releasing of the refund amount to the petitioner is concerned.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture, submits th,lt the bill for refund produced by the learned Special Government Pleader only is in respect of total amount of refund that was payable. It does not carry the interest part payable on the said amount in terms of Section 38(6) of the TVAT Acl

5. Be that as it ffiEy, considering the fact that the Special Government Pleader has produced a document showing that the department has already sanctioned the amount payable to the petitioner by itself establishes the fact that the petitioner is, in fact, entitled for the claim of refund made by them. The question now remains is how early the payment be released actually to the petitioner or will be credited to his bank account. So far as the claim of interest is concerned, once when the statute itself provides for payment of interest on the delayed payment of refund, we see no reason why the petitioner should not be entitled for interest on the said amount. Though the bill sanctioned by the department does not reflect computation of interest and the payment of interest payable to the petiiioner, we direct that the petitioner may immediately approach the department claiming for the interest on the said amount in accordance with the provisions of Section 38(6) of the TVAT Act. Upon such claim being raised, it shall be the duty of the respondents to immediately compute the , t interes.. part also that which shall be payable to the petitioner strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 38(6) of the TVAT Act-

6. L,et the amount sanctioned so far as payment of refund is concerned be released to the petitioner forthwith within an outer limit o1'45 days and so far as computation of interest under Section 38(6) of the TVAT Act is concerned, subject to the petitioncr moving an appropriate claim petition, let the same also be procr:ssed and frnalized and the amount of interest be also paid witrin outer limit of 60 days from the date of receipt claim petition bY the Petitioner'

7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order ils to costs' Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. r.zr" I To, //TRUE COPYII SD/.A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER Taxes Department,

2. The corrmissrioner of commercial raxes, Telangana commercial rax Departmr:nt, C.T Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad SOO OOt

3. The principal Secretary to.Government, (commercial rax Department), Telangana secretariat, Telangana State i{yderabad - sooo22 4 . The Dep uty^g,olT i::! g-g (S T) j_ .ST_U-2, Com me rcia I Taxes Depa rtment, Begumpet lJlvlslon, nyOerabad-s0O01 6.

The Principal secretfu., pqgartment of Finance, Government of retangana, BR Ambedkar Secretaiii[ rivo"illl,'a.

6. one cc to sRr LAKSHMT KUMARAN SRTDHARAN, Advocate. [opUCJ 7- one cc to sRr swARoop ooRrLLA, spL.G.p for state Tax. [opUC]

8. Two ccs to Gp FoR FTNANCE & PLANNTNG, High court for the state of Telangana at HyderabaO. pOUil- L Two CD Copies. BSK BS \

\ HIGH C}OURT DATED :20101t202G

ORDER

WP.No.13503 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT WITHOUI- COSTS \ STA 0 g tEB 2026 :F--, PETITION I I l I i I ,)