M/S B H Gangadharachar vs. State Of Karnataka

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of UNIQUE CONSTRUCTIONS & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others1, wherein the earlier judgments of this Court in Sri. Chandrashekaraiah and others Vs. The State of Karnataka - W.P.No.9721/2019 and connected State of Karnataka and another - W.P.No.104908/2023 dated 29.08.2023, were followed and appropriate orders were passed by this Court.

Per contra learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that if the petitioner appears before the respondent No.2 on a given date and submits all necessary documents, the 1 Writ Petition No.27637/2023 DD 25.07.2024 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49278 respondent No.2 shall consider the claim/representation of the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law. The submission is placed on record.

The order in the case of UNIQUE CONSTRUCTIONS, supra, reads as under:- “In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs: “(a) Issue a writ or such other order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the differential GST amount paid by the Petitioners for the works executed by each of the Petitioners respectively, as per the representations dated 06.07.2023, 07.07.2023, 11.07.2023, 17.07.2023 etc., given by the Petitioners-Contractors to respective Respondent- employers (as per the abstract Annexed) and produced at annexure-B, B-1 to B-29. (b) Issue a writ or such other order directing the respondent No.1 – State Govt, to issue a circular/policy to address the issue of payment of GST on works contract which are executed under VAT regime wherein, GST is not paid by the Respondent-Employers but is levied and paid by the petitioner-Contractors to the GST department. c)pass such other orders as may be deemed appropriate under the circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice.”

Heard Sri. Naveen G.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri S.H.Raghavendra, learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri K.S. Bheemaiah, 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49278 law laid down by this Court in the case of Sri. of dated 11.04.2023 and 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. (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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49278 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. (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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49278 (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 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 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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49278 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 a co-ordinate Bench of this Court (supra), the petition deserves to be allowed.

For the aforesaid reasons, the following: Annexures – B to B29 back to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition.

Accordingly, I pass the following:- ORDER