IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO W.P.No. 13608 OF 2025

20.01.2026 Between:

M/s ICICI Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager Mr. P.Nagaraju …Petitioner A N D 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 M/s Lakshmi Kumaran Sridharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for the State Tax for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. Mohammed Hussain, learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning for respondent No.5. Perused the record.

2. The present is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue refund sanction order for an amount of Rs.55,97,328/- to the petitioner under the provisions of the Telangana Value Added Tax 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.

3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Special Government Pleader produced a document dated 07.01.2026 reflecting it to be bill for refund of revenue bills. The amount of refund claimed by the petitioner amounting to Rs.55,97,328/- is shown to have been approved by the department concerned and has been sent to the treasury 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 that 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 Act.

5. Be that as it may, 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 petitioner, 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 interest 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. Let the amount sanctioned so far as payment of refund is concerned be released to the petitioner forthwith within an outer limit of 45 days and so far as computation of interest under Section 38(6) of the TVAT Act is concerned, subject to the petitioner moving an appropriate claim petition, let the same also be processed and finalized and the amount of interest be also paid within 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 as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________

P.SAM KOSHY, J _________________________________ SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J

20.01.2026

Lrkm