Nissar Ahmed vs. Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation Limited
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, NISSAR AHMED, a Class-I contractor, filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court seeking reimbursement of GST paid to the extent of Rs. 97,96,216/- for civil works carried out for the first respondent, Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation Limited (KSIIDC). The petitioner had submitted a representation dated August 30, 2024, to KSIIDC regarding this reimbursement, but no action was taken. The petitioner also sought an alternative prayer to direct KSIIDC to consider his representation. The second respondent is the Finance Department of the State of Karnataka. The court decided to consider the alternative prayer.
Held
The Court held that the first respondent (KSIIDC) has a legal obligation to consider the petitioner's request for GST reimbursement. However, it noted that the petitioner had not furnished the necessary individual GST calculations for the work performed. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation along with these individual GST work calculations. Upon receipt of these details, the first respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated August 30, 2024, and pass appropriate orders within two months. The Court also referred to an order dated August 28, 2024, passed in W.P.No.19249/2024, implying that the consideration should be in light of that order. All contentions of the parties were left open, and no specific finding was made on the merits of the GST reimbursement claim itself.
Key Issues
1. Whether the first respondent (KSIIDC) has a legal obligation to consider the petitioner's representation dated August 30, 2024, seeking reimbursement of GST paid for civil works, and if so, what is the procedure to be followed? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that he had discharged his GST liability for the works done for KSIIDC and had submitted a representation seeking reimbursement. He contended that KSIIDC had failed to take any action on this representation, despite its legal obligation to do so. Respondent No. 1's (KSIIDC) contention: The first respondent argued that while the petitioner had submitted a representation, he had failed to furnish individual GST calculations in respect of the work carried out by him with KSIIDC. The respondent's counsel did not rely on any specific provision, circular, or precedent.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
Heard Smt.Sanmathi E.I, learned counsel for petitioner, Smt.Manjula Nemichandra Tejaswi, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Smt.Jyoti Maradi M, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner is before this Court under Sections 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs: "(a) To direct the respondent to reimburse GST amount paid to an extent of Rs.97,96,216/- by petitioner for period till completion of project at rate of 24% interest from date of payment made NC: 2025:KHC:4645 by petitioner to Government and therefore this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the first respondent to refund the GST amount paid by petitioner.
(b) or Alternatively direct the first respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner at Annexure-C dated 30.08.2024. (c) Pass such other orders as may be deemed appropriate under the circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice."
For the present, prayer of the petitioner at (b) is considered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had carried out certain civil works of the 1st respondent and had discharged GST Tax liability. The petitioner has sought GST reimbursement from 1st respondent. In that regard petitioner has submitted representation as per Annexure-C dated 30.08.2024. It is the grievance of the petitioner that 1st respondent has not taken any action on the said representation, which is at Annexure-C. NC: 2025:KHC:4645
Learned counsel Smt.Manjula Nemichandra Tejaswi appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that though the petitioner has submitted representation dated 30.08.2024, has failed to furnish the individual GST calculations in respect of work carried out by him with the 1st respondent-Board.
The 1st respondent ought to have considered the request of the petitioner for GST reimbursement in accordance with law, but the 1st respondent has failed to consider the representation though it is submitted on 30.08.2024 (Annexure-C). The 1st respondent has legal obligations to consider the said representation. In the above facts and circumstances, the following:
ORDER i) Petitioner is directed to submit one more fresh representation furnishing individual GST work calculation relating to the work carried out by him with the 1st respondent. NC: 2025:KHC:4645 ii) On submission of the above details by the petitioner, respondent No.1 is directed to consider representation of the petitioner at Annexure-C dated 30.08.2024 and pass appropriate orders within two months from thereafter in the light of the order dated 28.08.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.19249/2024. iii) Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. All contentions of the parties are left open. (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE
RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5
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.