M/S Sweet Home Constructions vs. The Government Of Karnataka
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondents No.1 and 2. 2. The petitioner is a civil contractor and having experience in his field of the work, he had paid the tax under the VAT regime and after the enactment of GST, petitioner has dutifully paid the tax to the GST Department. In view of having paid the additional tax, the petitioner requested the respondents to reimburse the additional amount that is differential tax paid by the petitioner over and above the VAT liable under the GST regime and sought for refund of the amount from the respondent authorities.
Petitioner relies upon judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.104908/2023, decided on 29.08.2023, wherein a similar issue had fallen for NC: 2024:KHC-D:16549 consideration and this Court, allowed the writ petition. It was held at paragraph No.5 as follows:
It is not in dispute that the entire tender process and allocation of work by respondent/Department is post coming into force of Goods and Services Tax. If petitioner, who is a registered Civil Contractor has completed the tender work, respondent/Department being a service recipient is under bounden duty to reimburse GST amount of Rs.2,16,51,903/- in terms of Section 13 of The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It is also not in dispute that petitioner, who is a class-I contractor having rendered service, is under mandatory duty to pay GST amount to the department. Equally respondent/Department is under bounden duty to reimburse the GST amount. It is borne out from the records that since necessary payment at the petitioner's end the applicable GST being statutory requirement, the respondent/Department ought to have reimbursed 12% GST amount on the total work done by petitioner. Since, there is total inaction on the part of respondent/Department, this is a fit case where mandamus needs to be issued. For the reasons stated supra, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed. ii) The respondent is hereby directed to reimburse GST amount as indicated in the representation dated 15.04.2023 vide Annexure-E. NC: 2024:KHC-D:16549 iii) The respondent/Department shall reimburse the said amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
In another Writ Petition No.25439/2023 decided on 19.02.2024, similar order came to be passed by directing the authorities to reimburse the GST amount as indicated in the representation therein. Under these circumstances, the petitioner also would be entitled to similar order as the matter is covered by these judgments of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) Respondent No.2 is directed to reimburse the GST amount as per the representation of the petitioner made at Annexure-B dated 16.08.024. iii) Respondent No.2 shall reimburse the said amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE MRK CT-MCK/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46
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.