The Managing Director vs. M/S Mycon Construction Limited
Original PDF →Facts
The Karnataka High Court was hearing three review petitions (RP Nos. 485/2024, 174/2024, and 488/2024) seeking to review orders passed on February 19, 2024, in three writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 25439/2023 and 28/2024). The review petitioners, including the Karnataka State Police Housing and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited and the Chief Engineer, Transmission Zone, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, argued that they were not issued notice in the original writ petitions. They also contended that the issues in the writ petitions, concerning the refund of GST, were already covered by earlier judgments of coordinate benches of the High Court. The original writ petitions were disposed of by following these coordinate bench judgments.
Held
The Court allowed the review petitions. The primary ground for allowing the review was that the review petitioners were not issued notice in the original writ petitions, and therefore, were not heard. The Court acknowledged that the original writ petitions were disposed of by following earlier judgments of coordinate benches on the issue of GST refund. However, the Court found it "un-understandable" how the issue could be "fragmentally differentiated" by each respondent. Despite the existence of prior judgments, the Court decided to afford an opportunity to the review petitioners. Consequently, the orders dated February 19, 2024, passed in the writ petitions were recalled. The writ petitions were directed to be listed on September 2, 2025, with a clear direction that no further adjournment would be granted. The Court also issued directions for the respondent to place necessary contracts on record and for the writ petitioners to serve complete sets of writ petition papers upon the review petitioners.
Key Issues
1. Whether the review petitions should be allowed on the ground that notice was not issued to the review petitioners in the original writ petitions? 2. Whether the High Court erred in disposing of the original writ petitions without hearing the review petitioners, despite the issues being covered by previous judgments of coordinate benches? The review petitioners argued that they were not afforded an opportunity of being heard as no notice was issued to them in the original writ proceedings. They also submitted that while the original writ petitions were disposed of by following pronouncements of coordinate benches on the issue of GST refund, they had specific submissions to make. The revenue (State of Karnataka) did not appear to have made specific arguments recorded in the judgment regarding the review petitions, other than being represented by the learned Additional Government Advocate.
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.