M/S Sweet Home Constructions R/By The Proprietor Of The Firm Sri Shivanand R Shetty vs. The Government Of Karnataka
Original PDF →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 in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the differential Goods and Services Tax (GST) amount paid for works executed. This claim was based on a representation dated 21-11-2024 submitted by the petitioner to Respondent No. 2. The petitioner sought the refund of differential GST paid for works executed under contracts that spanned the transition from the pre-GST regime (KVAT) to the GST regime. The specific amount in dispute is the differential GST paid by the petitioner.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition deserved to succeed, following the precedent set by a Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.9721/2019 and connected matters. 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 established guidelines and directions issued in the aforementioned judgment, which dealt with the calculation and reimbursement of differential tax amounts for works executed during the transition period from KVAT to GST. The Court found that the petitioner's case fell within the ambit of those directions. The operative direction was for the respondents to reimburse the specified GST amount 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, considering the transition from the KVAT regime to the GST regime? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that the issue is squarely covered by a judgment of a Coordinate Bench of the same High Court in W.P.No.9721/2019 and connected matters, disposed of on 11.04.2023. The petitioner relied on this precedent to support their claim for reimbursement of the differential tax. The respondents, represented by the Government of Karnataka and the Executive Engineer, NWKRTC, did not present any specific arguments against the petitioner's claim in the provided text. The judgment notes that the learned AGA representing Respondent No. 1 and the learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 appeared, but their arguments are not recorded.
Sections Cited
Not explicitly mentioned in the judgment text provided.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following relief: “i. To issue a writ or such other order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the differential GST amount paid by the petitioner for the works executed by the petitioner as per the representation dated 21-11-2024 bearing No. REF. 080/SHC/LETTER/2024-25 given by the petitioner contractor to respondent No.2 as per Annexure-B. ii. Any other relief that, the Hon’ble Court deems it fit in the light of the facts and circumstances, in the ends of justice.”
Heard the learned counsel Sri. Ravikiran P. Pawar appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel NC: 2025:KHC-D:3439 Smt.Veena Hegde appearing for the respondent No.2 and the learned AGA Sri.Sharad A.Magadum representing the respondent No.1-State.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in the lis stands answered by a judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.9721/2019 connected with matters disposed on 11.04.2023, which reads as follows:
"
In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petitions are hereby disposed of. (ii) The Respondents-State and other Govt agencies / Respondents who have entered into works contract with the Petitioners are issued the following directions / guidelines:- (a) Calculate the works executed pre-GST (prior to 01.07.2017) under KVAT regime and payments received by the Petitioners. (b) The payments received by the Petitioners preGST for such of the works executed before 01.07.2017 are to be assessed under KVAT tax regime – either under COT or VAT scheme as applicable. NC: 2025:KHC-D:3439 (c) Calculate the balance works to be completed or completed after 01.07.2017, in the original contract. (d) Derive the rate of materials, KVAT items required or used to complete the balance works. (e) Deduct the "KVAT" amount from those materials and the service tax, if applicable. (f) Add the applicable "GST" on those items. (g) Input Credit on the materials is to be arrived at and be set off as against the output GST, for those assessed under regular VAT. (h) Further, the “tax difference” should be calculated on such balance works executed or to be executed after 01.07.2017 separately. (i) Based on the result obtained on calculation of the tax difference on the contract value, concerned department/ authority has to decide whether agreement needs to be changed or not. (j) A supplementary agreement may be signed with the Petitioners for the revised GST-inclusive work value for the Balance Work completed or to be completed as determined above and in case the revised GST-inclusive work value for the Balance Work, completed or to be completed after 01.07.2017, is more than the original agreement work value, the Petitioners are to be paid /reimbursed, as the case may be, the differential tax amount by the concerned employer; so also, in case payments for works completed pre-GST are made post-GST, the concerned employer has to NC: 2025:KHC-D:3439 pay or reimburse, as the case may be, the differential tax amount, to the Petitioners. (iii) Petitioners are directed to submit comprehensive representations to the respective employers/Respondents within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, irrespective of whether they have completed the works pre-GST or post-GST or payments were received or yet to be received post-GST. (iv) If such representations are submitted, the respective employers/Respondents are directed to consider and dispose of the same in the light of the aforesaid directions / guidelines as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of 8 weeks from the date of submission of the representations. (v) In view of the interim orders passed by this Court in the present petitions, such of the petitioners who had not filed their GST returns during the period after 01.07.2017 are permitted to file their returns / amended returns, pursuant to the calculation of the differential tax as per procedure above under GST regime, without insisting on interest or penalty or limitation. (vi) The GST authorities are also directed not to take precipitative action against the Petitioners for a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (vii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to challenge any order / decision passed / taken by the respondents or the authorities, subsequent to this order NC: 2025:KHC-D:3439 and also take recourse to such remedies as available in law."
In that light, the petition deserves to succeed with the same order.
For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed. ii. The respondents are hereby directed to reimburse GST amount as indicated in the representation dated 21.11.2024. iii. The respondents/Department shall reimburse the said amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE
KGK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 181
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.