Sri Tam Tam Venkataramana Reddy vs. The Commissioner

Held

The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, BBMP, bearing Misc No.PSR.(4) 6767/2022-23, dated 21.01.2023, was liable to be quashed. The Court found that the relevant aspects had not been considered by the respondent authority while passing the impugned order. Consequently, a writ of certiorari was issued quashing the said order. The matter was remitted to the Commissioner, BBMP, for fresh consideration. The Commissioner was directed to proceed in accordance with the directions and guidelines issued by the Coordinate Bench of the High Court in its judgment dated April 11, 2023, in W.P.No.9721/2019 and other connected matters. This reconsideration was to be completed within 60 days of receiving a copy of the order. The petitioner was granted liberty to furnish supporting documents within 30 days, which the Commissioner was to consider after providing a hearing to the petitioner, with the final disposal to occur within 90 days thereafter.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri. Tam Tam Venkataramana Reddy, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an order passed by the Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) on January 21, 2023. The petitioner contended that the calculation of GST in the impugned order was improper and did not consider all relevant aspects. He relied on a previous judgment by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court dated April 11, 2023, in W.P.No.9721/2019 and other connected matters, arguing that the principles laid down therein should have been followed by the respondent authority. The petitioner sought to quash the order and sought a mandamus to calculate the differential tax between VAT and GST and reimburse the excess paid.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order passed by the Commissioner, BBMP, in Misc No. PSR.(4) 6767/2022-23, dated 21.01.2023, is liable to be quashed for improper calculation of GST and failure to consider all aspects, particularly in light of the judgment in W.P.No.9721/2019. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was not proper as it failed to consider all aspects of the GST calculation and did not adhere to the principles laid down by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court in its judgment dated April 11, 2023, in W.P.No.9721/2019 and other connected matters. The petitioner sought a direction to calculate the differential tax between VAT and GST and reimburse the excess tax paid. Respondents' contention: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the respondents (Commissioner, BBMP, and Executive Engineer, Storm Water Drain, BBMP).