Sri M Shivappa vs. State Of Karnataka

Facts

The petitioners, Sri M. Shivappa and others, represented by their GPA holder M/s Surya Projects, filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice dated July 2, 2020, issued by the Joint Director, Building License Cell (North), Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The demand notice included amounts for scrutiny fee, license fee, ground rent, GST, security deposit, and Construction Workers Welfare Cess. The petitioners sought to quash these demands. The writ petition was listed for preliminary hearing before the High Court of Karnataka.

Held

The High Court disposed of the present writ petition by following its previous order dated August 4, 2021, passed in W.P.No.4601/2020 and connected cases. The judgment does not provide the specific details of the order in W.P.No.4601/2020 or the reasoning applied therein. Therefore, the specific findings on the issues of GST, license fee, ground rent, and security deposit, as well as the operative directions, are not detailed in this particular judgment. The court's decision to follow a prior order implies that the outcome for this petition would mirror that of the earlier batch of cases.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand for GST on license fee, ground rent, and security deposit is legally sustainable under the relevant provisions of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that the demand for GST on license fee, ground rent, and security deposit was unsustainable. They contended that these components were not subject to GST as they did not constitute a supply of goods or services. The petitioners likely relied on principles of GST law that define taxable supplies and exemptions. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's specific arguments regarding the GST demand. However, it can be inferred that the revenue, through the BBMP, contended that these charges were leviable to GST.