B H G Constructions vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, B H G Constructions, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka seeking a direction to Respondent No. 2, the Executive Engineer, Hemavathy Dam Division, to pay Goods and Services Tax (GST) on work performed under two agreements: Agreement No. 103/2019-20 and Agreement No. 104/2019-20, both dated March 21, 2020. The petitioner also sought consideration of their representation dated August 4, 2023. The respondents, represented by the State of Karnataka and the Executive Engineer, submitted that the petitioner's claim would be examined as per law, taking into account the petitioner's reliance on a previous court order.
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated August 4, 2023 (Annexure-'D'). The Court ordered that appropriate orders be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. The Court did not make a specific finding on the primary issue of directing the payment of GST by Respondent No. 2, but rather focused on the procedural aspect of considering the petitioner's representation. The reasoning appears to be that the representation, which likely contains the details of the GST claim and the reliance on the prior order, needs to be formally examined by the authorities before any definitive order can be made by the Court. The operative direction is to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should direct Respondent No. 2 to pay GST on the work done under Agreement No. 103/2019-20 and Agreement No. 104/2019-20, as per Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for Respondent No. 2 to pay GST on the work done under the specified agreements. They also relied on an order dated August 29, 2023, passed in W.P.No.104908/2023, implying a precedent for their claim. Revenue/State's Contention: The respondents stated that the petitioner's claim would be examined as per law, including the petitioner's reliance on the aforementioned court order.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ to direct the respondent No.2 to pay GST as regards the work done pursuant to the Agreement No.103/2019-20 dated 21.03.2020 and Agreement No.104/2019-20 dated 21.03.2020 at Annexures-'A' and 'B' respectively. The petitioner has sought for an alternative relief and has also sought for consideration of the representation at Annexure-'D' dated 04.08.2023. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the claim of the petitioner would be examined as per law, including the contention of the petitioner placing reliance on the order dated 29.08.2023 passed in W.P.No.104908/2023. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23913 WP No. 36089 of 2024
Accordingly, the petition is disposed off directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner at Annexure-'D' dated 04.08.2023 and appropriate orders be passed within a period of four weeks from today. (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VGR
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.