Mr. R.A. Reyaz Khan vs. State Of Karnataka

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by following its previous order dated August 4, 2021, passed in W.P.No.4601/2020 and connected cases. While the specific findings and reasoning of the August 4, 2021 order are not detailed in this judgment, it is evident that the issues raised in the present petition were identical and were decided based on that prior ruling. The operative directions would therefore align with the relief granted or denied in the earlier batch of cases. The ratio decidendi would be the legal principle established in the August 4, 2021 order, which is applied here due to the identical nature of the issues. The judgment does not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioners, Mr. R.A. Reyaz Khan and Mrs. R. Danish Kahanam, challenged a demand notice issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning (East) (Respondent No. 3). The demand included Rs. 7,41,100/- towards ground rent and 18% GST on ground rent, along with Rs. 40,000/- for scrutiny fee. The petitioners sought to quash this demand notice. The present writ petition raises identical issues to those previously considered in W.P.No.4601/2020 and connected cases, which were disposed of by an order dated August 4, 2021. The State of Karnataka (Respondent No. 1) and the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (Respondent No. 2) are also parties to the proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand for Goods and Services Tax (GST) at 18% on the ground rent and scrutiny fee is legally sustainable? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the demand for GST on ground rent and scrutiny fee is unsustainable. They relied on the principle that GST is levied on the supply of goods or services, and the demand notice did not establish a clear supply of services by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) that would attract GST. The petitioners likely contended that ground rent and scrutiny fees are statutory charges or levies, not consideration for a taxable supply. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State or the BBMP regarding the GST demand. However, the issuance of the demand notice itself implies the revenue's position that the GST is leviable.