Sri R Veerabhadrappa vs. The Chief Engineer

Petitioner is said to be Class-I Contractor involved in the business of undertaking works assigned by the State and its Authorities. He had registered himself as a registered "dealer" under the provisions of Karnataka Value Added Tax (KVAT) and was paying tax on the turn over. With coming into effect of Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, he has registered himself as a taxable person under the GST Act and has obtained independent GST registration number. The change in regime from KVAT to GST resulted in certain excess amount being paid by the petitioner to the Government Authorities. He has made representations for refund of the same. As the same has not been considered so far, the present writ petition is filed with the following prayer: "WHEREFORE, the Petitioners most humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to: (a) ISSUE a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the representations dated 03-04-2024 at ANNEXURE-E, E1, E2 & E3_ to the writ NC: 2024:KHC:43960 petition regarding payment of differential GST tax for contact works executed by the petitioner for the period indicated in the representations by giving time bound direction to the Respondents 3 to 6, under the facts and circumstances of the case; and b) ISSUE any other appropriate writ, order or orders or direction as this Hon'ble court may deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice.

Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents upon instructions submits that petitioner is entitled to the refund of differential amount (being the difference between VAT and GST). However, petitioner has not produced all the relevant details and the respondents are not aware as to the exact amount to be refunded to the petitioner and if he was to provide all the relevant particulars, his case will be considered in accordance with law. The respondents do not dispute the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9721/2019 and connected matters and also W.P.No.8489/2023 under NC: 2024:KHC:43960 similar circumstances. There is no reason why the order passed in the aforementioned writ petitions should not enure to the benefit of the petitioners. Hence, the following: ORDER i. Petitioner is given liberty to make a detailed representation to respondent Nos.1 to 6 enclosing all the necessary particulars. ii. Upon receipt of such representation, respondent Nos.1 to 6 are directed to consider the same and refund the amount due to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks thereafter. iii. The writ petition is disposed of. (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE