M/S. M. R. Constructions vs. The State Of Karnataka - Karnataka High Court, 15 March 2024

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:10872 WP No. 5018 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.5018 OF 2024 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: M/S. M. R. CONSTRUCTIONS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. M RAJENDRA, S/O MUNI VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC CLASS-I CONTRACTOR, RESIDING AT NO.231, 3RD MAIN, 6TH CROSS, BTM II STAGE MICO LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 076 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGAMANJU K.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE EAST PROJECTS MAYOHALL BUILDING, 21ST FLOOR, MG ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001. 4. THE ACCOUNTS SUPERINTENDENT BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:10872 WP No. 5018 of 2024 EAST PROJECTS MAYOHALL BUILDING, 21ST FLOOR, M G ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001 5. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(LGSTO-10) DGSTO-1 VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA, KALIDASA ROAD, GROUND FLOOR, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR AGA FOR R1; SRI. B.L. SANJEEV ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4; SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK HCGP FOR R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- ISSUE WRIT TO THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT THE GST TAXABLE AMOUNT PER THE PROVISION OF THE KGST ACT 2017, IN CONSEQUENT OF THE WORK

ORDER EXECUTED BY THE RESPONDENTS AUTHORITIES AND ALSO TO OBEY THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP.NO.15235/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-C BY TAKING INTO THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER REPRESENTATION DTD 06.10.2022 AT ANNEXURE-D.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER The petitioner is a Class I Contractor and is assigned with certain contracts. The petitioner has filed representations with the BBMP for payment of difference in tax incidence under the VAT regime and NC: 2024:KHC:10872 GST regime. Sri. Nagamanju, a learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Naveen Chandrashekar, the learned AGA for the first and fifth respondents, and Sri. B. L. Sanjeev, the learned standing counsel for the second to fourth respondents [BBMP and its officers], submit in unison that the question, ‘whether the BBMP must bear the difference between the tax incidents consequent to change in indirect tax regime under GST Act’, is considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.9721/2019 and this Court has directed the BBMP, as the Principal, to shoulder such responsibility, but this decision is pending consideration in a writ appeal before the Division Bench.

The learned counsel for the parties also submit that BBMP has been considering the request for payment towards the difference in tax liability in the light of decision in W.P.No.9721/2019, but subject to the order in the writ appeal. When queried, NC: 2024:KHC:10872 Sri.B.L.Sanjeev submits that petitioner’s request would also be similarly considered. Hence, the petition stands disposed of directing the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation in the light of this Court’s order in W.P.No.9721/2019 and forward appropriate recommendations to the second and third respondents for due consideration. JUDGE