M N Lokesh vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M.N. Lokesh, a Class 1 Contractor, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the first respondent, the State of Karnataka's Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, to consider and dispose of his representations. These representations, at Annexures E1-E7 and Annexure G series, were addressed to respondents 2 to 8. The core of the petitioner's grievance is that the GST component was not part of his contractual agreements, and he seeks reimbursement for GST paid from his own funds. The Additional Government Advocate acknowledged that while the representations were made to respondents 2 to 8, the first respondent is the competent authority to decide the matter.
Held
The Court directed the petitioner to submit a composite and comprehensive representation to the 1st respondent within ten days from the date of the order. This representation should encompass the grievances articulated in the Annexure-E and Annexure-G series. Upon receipt of this consolidated representation, the 1st respondent is directed to consider and dispose of it after providing a hearing to the petitioner. This disposal is to be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of submission of the representation. The Court explicitly stated that all contentions are kept open, meaning no final decision on the merits of the GST reimbursement claim was made. The operative direction is to facilitate the consideration of the petitioner's representations by the competent authority.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of GST paid from his own funds, given that the GST component was allegedly not part of the contractual agreements? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of contractual terms and GST applicability). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that GST was not included in his contractual agreements and therefore, he should be reimbursed for the GST paid from his personal funds. He relied on his representations (Annexures E1-E7 and G series) detailing this grievance. Revenue/State's contention: The learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submitted that although the representations were addressed to respondents 2 to 8, the first respondent (Principal Secretary, Department of Finance) is the competent authority to decide the subject matter of these representations.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
Petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to consider and dispose off the representations at Annexures-E1 to E7 and the representations at Annexure-G series. Certain consequential reliefs upon consideration of representations in affirmative are also sought.
The representations made at Annexure-E series have been addressed to respondents 2 to 8 and by virtue NC: 2024:KHC:28943 of the said representations, petitioner has requested the Authorities that GST Component was not a part of the contractual agreement and accordingly, has sought for making reimbursement of GST paid by the petitioner from his own funds.
Sri. K. Hemakumar, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that though the representations are addressed to respondents 2 to 8, it is the 1st respondent which is the competent authority to take decision as regards the subject matter of the representations at Annexure-E series and G series.
In light of the same, it would be appropriate to dispose off the writ petition with the following direction. Petitioner to make out a composite and comprehensive representation to the 1st respondent containing the grievance as made out in the representations at Annexure-E series and G series. If such representation is made to the 1st respondent within ten NC: 2024:KHC:28943 days from the date of disposal of the petition, the 1st respondent would thereafter be directed to consider the said representation and dispose off the same after hearing the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of submission of the representation.
Accordingly, petition is disposed off. All contentions are kept open. (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP
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.