Sri.G. Lokesh vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “ (i) To issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to disburse the GST amount in favour of the petitioner or consider the representation dated 08.07.2024 which has been produced at Annexure-C.
(ii) To issue or direct the respondent authorities to reimburse GST amount a sum of Rs.25,50,360/- to the petitioner and has sought for direction for payment of interest on tax dues at 18% per annum being the statutory interest rate chargeable under Section 50 of the CGST Act, 2017 and consider the representation dated 08.07.2024 which has been produced at Annexure-C in the interest of justice and equity.”
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the material on record.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the prayer that is sought is to be allowed in the light of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Sri.Chandrashekaraiah and HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49681 others Vs. The State of Karnataka – W.P.No.9721/2019 and connected cases dated 11.04.2023, wherein it is held as under:
"
In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) Petitions are hereby disposed of.
(ii) The Respondents-State and other Govt agencies / Respondents who have entered into works contract with the Petitioners are issued the following directions / guidelines:- (a) Calculate the works executed pre-GST (prior to 01.07.2017) under KVAT regime and payments received by the Petitioners.
(b) The payments received by the Petitioners pre-GST for such of the works executed before 01.07.2017 are to be assessed under KVAT tax regime – either under COT or VAT scheme as applicable.
(c) Calculate the balance works to be completed or completed after 01.07.2017, in the original contract.
(d) Derive the rate of materials, KVAT items required or used to complete the balance works.
(e) Deduct the "KVAT" amount from those materials and the service tax, if applicable.
(f) Add the applicable "GST" on those items.
(g) Input Credit on the materials is to be arrived at and be set off as against the output GST, for those assessed under regular VAT. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49681 (h) Further, the “tax difference” should be calculated on such balance works executed or to be executed after 01.07.2017 separately.
(i) Based on the result obtained on calculation of the tax difference on the contract value, concerned department/ authority has to decide whether agreement needs to be changed or not.
(j) A supplementary agreement may be signed with the Petitioners for the revised GST- inclusive work value for the Balance Work completed or to be completed as determined above and in case the revised GST-inclusive work value for the Balance Work, completed or to be completed after 01.07.2017, is more than the original agreement work value, the Petitioners are to be paid /reimbursed, as the case may be, the differential tax amount by the concerned employer; so also, in case payments for works completed pre- GST are made post-GST, the concerned employer has to pay or reimburse, as the case may be, the differential tax amount, to the Petitioners.
(iii) Petitioners are directed to submit comprehensive representations to the respective employers/Respondents within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, irrespective of whether they have completed the works pre-GST or post-GST or payments were received or yet to be received post-GST.
(iv) If such representations are submitted, the respective employers/Respondents are directed to consider and dispose of the same in the light of the aforesaid directions / guidelines as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of 8 weeks from the date of submission of the representations. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49681 (v) In view of the interim orders passed by this Court in the present petitions, such of the petitioners who had not filed their GST returns during the period after 01.07.2017 are permitted to file their returns / amended returns, pursuant to the calculation of the differential tax as per procedure above under GST regime, without insisting on interest or penalty or limitation. (vi) The GST authorities are also directed not to take precipitative action against the Petitioners for a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (vii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to challenge any order / decision passed / taken by the respondents or the authorities, subsequent to this order and also take recourse to such remedies as available in law."
A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shri.M.G. Arunkumar Vs. The State of Karnataka and another – W.P.No.104908/2023 dated 29.08.2023 followed the aforesaid order and allowed the petition. The Co-ordinate Bench has held as follows:
"
It is not in dispute that the entire tender process and allocation of work by respondent/Department is post coming into force of Goods and Services Tax. If petitioner, who is a registered Civil Contractor has completed the tender work, respondent/Department being a service recipient is under bounden duty to reimburse GST amount of HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49681 Rs.2,16,51,903/- in terms of Section 13 of The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It is also not in dispute that petitioner, who is a class-I contractor having rendered service, is under mandatory duty to pay GST amount to the department. Equally respondent/Department is under bounden duty to reimburse the GST amount. It is borne out from the records that since necessary payment at the petitioner's end the applicable GST being statutory requirement, the respondent/Department ought to have reimbursed 12% GST amount on the total work done by petitioner. Since, there is total inaction on the part of respondent/Department, this is a fit case where mandamus needs to be issued. For the reasons stated supra, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed. ii) The respondent is hereby directed to reimburse GST amount as indicated in the representation dated 15.04.2023 vide Annexure-E. iii) The respondent/Department shall reimburse the said amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”
In the light of the issue having been answered by this Court as well as the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (supra), the petition deserves to be allowed. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49681
For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgments of this Court in the cases of Chandrashekaraiah and M.G.Arun Kumar referred to in the body of this order. ii. The concerned respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to consider the representation at Annexure – C dated 08.07.2024 submitted by the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in terms of judgments of this Court in the cases of Chandrashekaraiah and M.G.Arun Kumar referred to in the body of this order. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
SV List No.: 2
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.