M/S. Sudhanva Engineers And Builders vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply And Drainage Board
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the fifth respondent’s Endorsement dated 02.07.2026 [Annexure-V]. Sri Siddharth Srikanth, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K Hema Kumar, a learned Additional Government Advocate who accepts notice for the third to fifth respondents, are heard on the petitioner's grievance with the impugned Endorsement. The fifth respondent, referring to the outcome in the writ appeal in W.A. No.275/2025 by Judgment dated 10.06.2026 and the Orders of this Court dated 25.04.2024 in the writ petitions in W.P. HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010503612026 NC: 2026:KHC:39415 Nos.2911/2024 and 3196/2024, has called upon the petitioner to discharge the liability under the corresponding Demand in Form GST DRC-07. 2. The writ petitions in W.P. Nos.2911/2024 and 3196/2024 are decided essentially based on the decision in the writ petitions in W.P. No.9721/2019 and connected matters [referred to as Sri Chandrasekhariah's case] with directions to the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board [for short, ‘the Board’] and its officers to pay the GST dues to the petitioners for the financial years 2017- 18 to 2020-21. The Order dated 25.04.2024 in the writ petitions in W.P. Nos.2911/2024 and 3196/2021 is carried in the Writ Appeal in W.A. No.275/2025. 3. The Division Bench after referring to the directions in Sri Chandrasekharaiah's case, has observed thus while concluding that no directions could have been issued permitting the filing of any HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010503612026 NC: 2026:KHC:39415 revised Returns and that the direction to reimburse the tax must be construed as a direction only to the Board [the employer] and not to the tax authorities. “The dispute as to whether the writ petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of incremental tax paid or payable by them on account of the levy of GST is strictly a matter between the writ petitioner and the concerned Employer with whom it had entered into a contract. The Agreement between the writ petitioner and the Employer would not alter the statutory scheme for the levy of GST. Thus, the liability of the writ petitioner to pay Goods and Services Tax under the (Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017) is required to be determined strictly in accordance with the provisions of the relevant statute. The question of the levy of GST, assessment, recovery, and enforcement is a matter of statutory prescription and cannot be altered by the terms of any contract.”
This Court opines that the observations as afore secures the Demand under the Adjudication Order and if the impugned Endorsement is issued HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010503612026 NC: 2026:KHC:39415 consequently, no exception can be taken. As such, the directions to the Board by this Court in the writ petitions in W.P. Nos.2911/2024 and 3196/2024 will have to be necessarily read in the context of the Division Bench's observation in the aforesaid writ appeal that it must be construed as a direction only to the concerned employer – the Board. The cause, if any, against the Board will have to be independent and cannot be made part of the cause against the State. In the light of the afore, the following. ORDER The petition is rejected, but without prejudice to the petitioner to pursue its remedy against the Board. (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-
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.