Sri. Syed S/O Imtiyaz Ahmad vs. The State Of Karnataka

Sri B. Sharanabasava, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner being successful bidder in respect of work notified by respondent under Tender Notification dated 20.05.2017; he entered into agreement and executed works. In meanwhile, there was change in tax regime from Valued Added Tax under Karnataka Value Added Tax Act to goods and services Tax under Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It was submitted, though respondents made payment of bills to petitioner insofar as tax component, reimbursement was not equal to quantum of tax paid by petitioner under Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Though petitioner approached respondents for claiming difference, same is not paid, constraining him to file writ petition. It was submitted that under similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.no.9721/2019 and connected writ petitions disposed on 11.04.2023, had passed following order: NC: 2024:KHC-D:5536 (i) Respondents-State and other Government agencies, who have entered into works contract with the petitioner is issued following directions / guidelines:- a. Calculate 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. 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 NC: 2024:KHC-D:5536 payments for works completed pre-GST are made post-GST, the concerned employer has to pay or reimburse, as the case may be, the differential tax amount, to the Petitioners. (ii) 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. (iii) 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. (iv) 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. (v) 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 and also take recourse to such remedies as available in law.

It was submitted that, petitioner is entitled for relief in terms of said decision. It was further submitted that in W.P.no.107109/2023 also this Court issued positive NC: 2024:KHC-D:5536 direction for refund and sought for dismissal of writ petition.

On other hand, Sri Aravind D. Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondents no.2 to 4 submitted that petitioner had not submitted any representation for claiming same and therefore not entitled for relief and submitted that if representation is submitted, respondent would consider same in light of directions issued in W.P.9271/2019 and W.P.no.107109/2023 within reasonable time.

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition records.

From above, it would appear subject matter of writ petition is squarely covered by decisions in W.P.9271/2019 and W.P.no.107109/2023. There is no dispute about petitioner having been awarded tender works and completing same. Dispute is about entitlement of petitioner for tax paid under GST regime. NC: 2024:KHC-D:5536

Consequently, Writ Petition is disposed of following directions issued in W.P.no.9721/2019 and W.P.no.107109/2023. Petitioner is directed to submit comprehensive representation to respondents substantiating claim within a period of two weeks from date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Upon receipt of representation, respondents no.2 to 4 are directed to consider representations in light of directions issued in above mentioned writ petitions and dispose of representations within a period of eight weeks under intimation to petitioner. JUDGE