M/S Shri Renuka Construction Co., Pertner vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents No.1 and 2. Notice to respondents No.3 and 4 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed.
The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other Writ quashing the letter bearing kaim/grakunee and naiai/havi/hasan/gst/2025-26/357 dated 24.06.2025 issued by the respondent No.4 vide Annexure “N”.
b. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to make payment of the shortfall GST amount as shown in Annexure ’P’ to Respondent No.2 forthwith.
c. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other Writ quashing the order dated 08.07.2025 bearing No. ACCT [Audit]-6/BGV/Order U/s 73/2025-25 B-245 passed by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure “P”.
d. Issue any other Writ or direction as this honorable Court deems fit to meet the ends of justice and equity.
The petitioner had been engaged by respondents No.3 and 4 for construction of various water supply facilities under agreements executed in the month of February HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12063 2021. In furtherance of the said agreements, the petitioner raised various bills from September 2022 to February 2023, as regards which payments were made from September 2022 to March 2023. The petitioner in all the aforesaid bills indicated the component of GST to be at 12 percent which is what was paid by respondents No.3 and 4 and in turn deposited by the petitioner with the GST authorities.
Respondent No.2 issued a notice show cause notice to the petitioner on 1.04.2025 stating that there is a shortfall in the payment of GST inasmuch as from 18.07.2022 on the nature of transaction as conducted by the petitioner the GST payable is 18% and there being a shortfall of 6%, the petitioner was called upon to make payment for the same by properly declaring the said GST in GSTR-3B and GSTR-1. The petitioner though replied to the same, did not subsequently appear resulting in the impugned orders being passed. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12063
Essentially learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as on the date on which the agreement was entered into, that is, February 2021, the rate of GST was 12%. The amendment increasing the rate of GST came into effect from 18.07.2022 to 18%. Thus, in terms of agreement bills had been raised showing the GST payable at 12 percent. His submission is that if GST being required to be paid from respondents No.4 and 5, the petitioner is only a collecting agent and whatever has been collected by the petitioner has been remitted by the petitioner, the petitioner has not derived any benefit from the said alleged non-payment of GST at 18 percent and as such, the petitioner cannot be called upon to make payment of the differential between 12% to 18%.
Heard Sri.Vitthal S.Teli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Sharad V.Magadum, learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2. Perused papers. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12063
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused papers, the following are not in dispute. Agreements were entered into on 10.02.2021, amendment increasing the GST from 12% to 18% came into effect from 18.07.2022, the bills which have been raised by the petitioner subject matter of the above petition were raised from September 2022 to February 2023, payments in relation thereto were made from September 2022 to March 2023. Therefore, it is clear that as on the date on which the petitioner raised the bills, that is from September 2022, the applicable GST was 18% and not 12%. It is on account of the mistake committed by the petitioner indicating the rate of GST to be 12 percent, respondents No.4 and 5 also made payment of GST at the rate of 12%. It was for the petitioner to raise proper bills so as to enable respondents No.4 and 5 to make payment of the due amounts properly. The default on part of the petitioner will not entitle the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12063 petitioner to contend that whatever has been paid by respondents No.4 and 5 has been paid by the petitioner and therefore there is no fault on account of the petitioner. It is clear that there is no merit in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner.
Hence, I pass the following: ORDER i. The petition is dismissed. ii. The petitioner is directed to make payment of the differential amount of GST to the respondents, however liberty is reserved in petitioner to collect the differential GST from respondents No.4 and 5. (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE
LN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 104
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.