M Lakshmana Raju vs. The Chief Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, M Lakshmana Raju, a Class I Contractor, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus against the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and its officials. The petitioner sought payment of Goods and Services Tax (GST) in addition to the value of work entrusted to him under two work orders dated July 13, 2020. These work orders were issued pursuant to a direction from the State of Karnataka dated October 11, 2018. The petitioner contended that the respondents were obligated to pay GST on top of the work value as per the said direction. The respondents are the Chief Commissioner, Chief Engineer, Executive Engineer, and Assistant Executive Engineer of BBMP, and the State of Karnataka through its Secretary, Department of Urban Development.

Held

The Court did not decide the substantive issues raised in the writ petition. After hearing arguments for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought and was granted permission to withdraw the petition. The Court reserved liberty to the petitioner to file arbitral proceedings against the respondents. Consequently, the Writ Petition was disposed of as withdrawn. No findings were made on the obligation to pay GST or the interpretation of the State's direction or the work orders. The procedural history indicates that the case did not proceed to a substantive decision on the merits of the claim.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are legally obligated to pay GST in addition to the value of the work entrusted to the petitioner, as per the work orders dated 13/07/2020 and the direction issued by the State of Karnataka dated 11/10/2018? The petitioner argued that the direction issued by the State of Karnataka (Annexure-B) mandated the payment of GST in addition to the value of the work. The petitioner relied on this direction to claim that the respondents, by issuing the work orders (Annexures-C and D) which did not explicitly exclude GST, were bound to pay it. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to enforce this payment. The respondents, represented by their counsel, did not present any specific arguments on the merits of the GST payment claim as recorded in the judgment. The judgment notes that after some arguments, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition.