M/S M R Constructions vs. The Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner sought a direction to consider their representation for payment of GST in addition to the total value of the work, as per a Government Order dated 11.10.2018. The petitioner's contention was that the work order issued to them, which calculated the financial component inclusive of GST, was contrary to this Government Order. The Court, after hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, observed that the petitioner sought a direction to consider their representation. The Court disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the petitioner sought a direction to consider their representation for payment of GST in addition to the total value of work in terms of the Government Order. The Court did not make a definitive finding on the applicability of the Government Order to BBMP works but directed consideration of the representation.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. M R Constructions, a civil contractor, was awarded a work contract by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) through a tender notification issued on September 14, 2018. Subsequently, on October 11, 2018, the Government of Karnataka, Department of Public Works, issued a communication directing that the Goods and Services Tax (GST) component should be paid separately when awarding work contracts. However, the work order issued to the petitioner on March 5, 2021, calculated the financial component inclusive of GST. The petitioner represented to the BBMP for payment of GST in addition to the total value of the work, citing the Government Order. This writ petition seeks a direction for the BBMP to consider this representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Government Order dated 11.10.2018, directing separate payment of GST on work contracts, is applicable to work contracts awarded by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP)? The petitioner argued that the Government Order dated 11.10.2018, issued by the Department of Public Works, mandates that the GST component should be paid separately when awarding work contracts. The petitioner contended that the work order issued to them, which included GST within the total financial component, runs counter to this directive. They sought a direction from the Court to consider their representation for payment of GST in addition to the work value, based on this Government Order. The respondents (BBMP) did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.