M/S Sweet Home Constructions R/By The Proprietor Of The Firm Sri Shivanand R Shetty vs. The Government Of Karnataka

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sweet Home Constructions, represented by its proprietor, filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, the Government of Karnataka and the Executive Engineer, PW and IWTD, Sirsi Division, to refund the differential Goods and Services Tax (GST) amount paid by the petitioner for works executed. This refund was sought based on a representation dated 21-11-2024 made by the petitioner to the Executive Engineer. The petitioner contended that the issue was covered by a previous judgment of a Coordinate Bench.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the issue was squarely covered by the judgment of a Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.9721/2019. The Court directed the respondents to reimburse the GST amount as indicated in the petitioner's representation dated 21.11.2024. The reasoning was based on the principle established in the cited judgment, which provided guidelines for calculating and refunding differential tax amounts for works contracts executed before and after the introduction of GST. The Court ordered the respondents to complete this reimbursement within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the differential GST amount paid for works executed, as per their representation dated 21-11-2024? (Question of law and fact, concerning the applicability of GST on works contracts executed before and after its introduction). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the issue in the present writ petition stands answered by a judgment of a Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.9721/2019, disposed of on 11.04.2023. They relied on the directions issued in that judgment concerning the calculation and reimbursement of differential tax amounts for works contracts executed across the pre-GST and post-GST periods. Respondents' contention: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the respondents against the petitioner's claim or their reliance on the previous judgment. The learned AGA for Respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 appeared.