The Chief Engineer vs. M/S Sweet Home Constructions
Original PDF →HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010791322025 NC: 2026:KHC:42500-DB WA No. 1941 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1941 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
THE CHIEF ENGINEER KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD 3RD AND 4TH FLOOR CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.R. ROAD BANGALORE - 560 009 …APPELLANT (BY SRI VIKRAM A. HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI SHISHIRA AMARNATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S. SWEET HOME CONSTRUCTIONS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI SHIVANANDA R SHETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS HAVING ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT: NO.8, GROUND FLOOR DATTATREYA COMPLEX SAI MANDIR ROAD KARWAR - 581 306 KARNATAKA
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS
Digitally signed by K P SWETHA Location: High Court of Karnataka HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010791322025 NC: 2026:KHC:42500-DB WA No. 1941 of 2025
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 2ND FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & SRI RAVI KIRAN P PAWAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.04.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.35667 OF 2024 & ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
The Chief Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board [KHB] has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 08.04.2025 [impugned order] passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.35667/2024 (GM-RES).
The said writ petition was filed by respondent No.1 [hereafter, 'the Contractor'], inter alia, praying that the direction be issued to KHB and the State of Karnataka to refund the differential GST amount paid by the Contractor for the works executed, as per HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010791322025 NC: 2026:KHC:42500-DB WA No. 1941 of 2025
the representation dated 21.11.2024 given by the Contractor to the KHB.
The learned Single Judge, without adverting to the facts, allowed the said petition by relying on the decision rendered in W.P.No.9721/2019 and other connected cases [Sri Chandrashekaraiah and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others1], decided on 11.04.2023, which was also followed in W.P.No.107489/2024 decided on 19.02.2025. 4. The relevant facts are that the KHB and the Contractor had entered into an agreement on 23.09.2017 [Agreement], whereby the work for construction of Mini Vidhana Soudha at Karwar, Uttar Kannada District was awarded to the Contractor at a contract price of `410.65 lakhs. KHB issued the work order to the Contractor on 06.10.2017, and the entire works were executed after the rollout of the GST regime; that is, after 01.07.2017. 5. On 21.11.2024, the Contractor submitted a representation to KHB seeking reimbursement of the differential GST amount, which it claimed that it had paid on the works executed after 01.07.2017. 1 NC:2023:KHC:15431 HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010791322025 NC: 2026:KHC:42500-DB WA No. 1941 of 2025
The representation indicates that the Contractor had raised five invoices. The invoices were raised between the period 10.10.2018 and 14.02.2024. It claimed that the invoices covered paid GST at the rate of 8% on the amount invoiced under the first three invoices and 14% GST on the last two invoices dated 14.02.2024. It claimed that it had paid the total GST of `56,80,365/- at the rate of 12% and 18% but had recovered only `19,07,577/- on account of the earlier VAT regime, which was included in the schedule of rates. The Contractor thus claimed that it was entitled to a sum of `38,15,154/- along with 18% interest from the date of crediting the GST till realisation.
Thereafter, the Contractor filed a writ petition, which was disposed of by the impugned order. The KHB contends that it computed the differential tax and found that the tax burden under the GST regime was lower than the levies under the Karnataka Value Added Tax. It claims that it was not liable to pay any differential tax, but instead was entitled to a refund of `9,39,826/- from the Contractor under the anti-profiteering provisions. It also issued an endorsement dated 12.11.2025 to that effect. HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010791322025 NC: 2026:KHC:42500-DB WA No. 1941 of 2025
As is apparent from the above, the controversy involves disputed questions of fact, which have not been examined by the learned Single Judge and are not mentioned in the impugned order. We are also of the view that the dispute between the parties is essentially a contractual dispute. It is not apposite to examine the same in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The decision in Sri Chandrashekaraiah's case (supra) does not indicate that any factual controversy such as that raised in this case was examined.
In view of the above, we allow the present appeal and set aside the impugned order. However, we clarify this order will not preclude the parties from availing their alternate remedies, albeit in accordance with law. (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE KPS List No.: 1
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.