The Archdiocese Of Bangalore vs. The Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, The Archdiocese of Bangalore, a public religious charitable trust, filed a writ petition seeking a refund of Rs. 11,01,080/- paid as ground rent on October 28, 2017, as per receipt Annexure-C. They also sought to quash a letter dated December 18, 2019 (Annexure-E) and a modified fee calculation as ground rent (Annexure-F) totaling Rs. 8,43,100/-, which included Rs. 7,14,490/- as ground rent and Rs. 1,28,610/- as 18% GST. The petitioner also prayed for a direction to accept the balance fee after deduction and issue a sanction plan. The respondents are the Commissioner, Joint Director, and Assistant Director of Town Planning, BBMP.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the letter dated December 18, 2019 (Annexure-E) and the fee calculation sheet (Annexure-F) in terms of the judgment in Sunderam Shetty vs. State of Karnataka. Regarding the amounts deposited by the petitioner under protest, the Court held that they would be entitled to a refund only if these amounts were not collected by the petitioner from the consumers of the apartments or commercial units. For other payments, the petitioner was granted liberty to make a representation to BBMP, which was directed to consider the refund in accordance with law and the findings in the Sunderam Shetty case within 90 days of receiving a copy of the order. The issue of whether the GST component was refundable was implicitly addressed by directing BBMP to consider refund in accordance with law and the Sunderam Shetty case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of Rs. 11,01,080/- paid as ground rent, and Rs. 8,43,100/- comprising ground rent and GST, under the provisions of the relevant municipal laws and GST Act, considering the principle laid down in Sunderam Shetty vs. State of Karnataka. The petitioner argued that the amounts paid were under protest and sought a refund. They relied on the judgment in Sunderam Shetty vs. State of Karnataka to support their claim for refund and quashing of the demand. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for refund and a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned letters and fee calculations. The respondents, represented by BBMP, did not appear to have filed any specific arguments recorded in the judgment. The judgment notes that the lis had been dealt with by a coordinate bench in Sunderam Shetty case.