The Executive Engineer vs. M/S Apoorva Construction Co
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, including the Karnataka State Police Housing and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited and the Chief Engineer, Transmission Zone, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, filed review petitions seeking to recall orders passed on February 19, 2024, in connected writ petitions. The original writ petitions concerned the refund of GST. The review petitioners contended that they were not issued notice in the original writ petitions and that the issues were covered by previous judgments of coordinate benches of the High Court. The original writ petitions were disposed of by following these prior judgments, which dealt with GST refunds.
Held
The High Court allowed the review petitions. The Court acknowledged that the original writ petitions were disposed of on February 19, 2024, by following earlier judgments of coordinate benches concerning GST refunds. However, the Court found merit in the review petitioners' contention that they were not issued notice and that they had submissions to make. The Court stated that it was "un-understandable" how the issue could be "fragmentally differentiated by each of the respondents." To afford an opportunity to the review petitioners, the Court decided to recall the orders dated February 19, 2024. The original writ petitions (W.P.Nos.25439/2023 and 28/2024) were ordered to be listed for fresh consideration on September 2, 2025. The Court made it clear that no further adjournment would be granted on that date. Directions were issued for the respondent in the original writ petitions to place necessary contracts on record and for the writ petitioners to serve complete sets of writ petition papers upon the review petitioners forthwith. The ratio decidendi is that even when a matter is covered by precedent, a review petition may be allowed to recall an order if a party who was a respondent was not given notice and had relevant submissions to make, ensuring principles of natural justice are upheld.
Key Issues
1. Whether the review petitioners were entitled to notice before the disposal of the original writ petitions concerning GST refunds, given that they were respondents in those petitions? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the inherent powers of the High Court). 2. Whether the High Court erred in disposing of the writ petitions without considering the specific submissions of the review petitioners, even though the matter was covered by previous judgments of coordinate benches? (Question of law, concerning the application of precedent and the scope of review for alleged errors apparent on the face of the record). Contentions of the Petitioners (Review Petitioners): The review petitioners argued that they were not issued notice in the original writ petitions and that their submissions were not considered. They relied on the fact that they were respondents in the original writ petitions and that the issues were covered by earlier judgments of this Court in W.P.No.9721/2019 and connected matters, disposed of on April 11, 2023, and W.P.No.104908/2023, disposed of on August 29, 2023. Contentions of the Respondents (Original Writ Petitioners): The respondents, represented by their counsel, argued that the issue of GST refunds was settled by the aforementioned judgments of coordinate benches, and the original writ petitions were disposed of in line with that established law. No specific arguments were recorded for the State of Karnataka in the context of the review petitions.
Sections Cited
Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (4 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
Respondent No.6 in W.P.No.25439/2023, respondent Nos.3 and 5 in W.P.No.28/2024 are before this Court seeking review of the orders passed in the aforesaid writ petitions, which came to be disposed on 19.02.2024. 2. Heard Sri Dakshina Murthy R., learned counsel for petitioner in R.P.Nos.485/2024 and 488/2024, Sri Vikram Unni HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32751 Rajagopal, learned counsel for petitioner in R.P.No.174/2024 and respondent No.5 in R.P.No.488/2024, Ms. Monisha Sen, learned counsel for Sri Naveen G.S., learned counsel for respondent No.1 in all petitions, Sri M. Rajakumar, learned AGA for respondent No.2 in R.P.Nos.485/2024 and 488/2024, Sri Shishira Amarnath, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 5 in R.P.No.485/2024, respondent No.3 in R.P.Nos.174/2024 and 488/2024, Sri B.L.Sanjeev, learned counsel for respondent No.10 in R.P.No.485/2024, Sri Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 8 in R.P.Nos.174/2024 and 488/2024. 3. These review petitioners are seeking to review the orders passed in the aforesaid writ petitions on a solitary ground that no notice is issued to them and that the issue in the lis stood covered by the judgments rendered by the co- ordinate benches of this Court in W.P.No.9721/2019 and connected matters, disposed on 11.04.2023 and W.P.No.104908/2023, disposed on 29.08.2023. 4. Learned counsel for the review petitioners would submit that they have some submissions to make, HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32751 notwithstanding the issue standing answered by the judgments rendered by the co-ordinate benches of this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions.
This Court on the say of the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate, on the date of disposal of the writ petitions i.e., 19.02.2024, had followed the judgments rendered by the coordinate benches of this Court and closed the proceedings, which was concerning the refund of GST. The law is declared. It is un-understandable, that how it can be fragmentally differentiated by each of the respondents. Nonetheless, to afford an opportunity to the review petitioners, the review petitions are allowed.
The orders impugned, all dated 19.02.2024, passed in the aforesaid writ petitions, stand recalled. Office to list W.P.Nos.25439/2023 and 28/2024 on 02.09.2025. It is made clear that no further adjournment on the said date would be granted. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32751 Miss. Monisha Sen, learned counsel for respondent in the respective petitions is directed to place on record the contracts that are necessary for the perusal of this Court at the time of disposal of the writ petitions. Learned counsel for writ petitioners are directed to serve complete sets of writ petitions papers upon the review petitioners, forthwith. Ordered accordingly. (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE
NVJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5 CT:SS
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.