Smt.J M Chandrappa vs. State Of Karnataka

Facts

The petitioners, represented by their General Power of Attorney holder, M/s. Sai Kalyan Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., challenged a demand notice dated May 13, 2020, issued by the Joint Director, Building License Cell (North), Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The demand notice was for various charges including scrutiny fee, license fee, ground rent and GST, and security deposit, as well as Construction Workers Welfare Cess. 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.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by following a previous order passed in W.P. No. 4601/2020 and connected cases decided on August 4, 2021. While the specific findings on the issues of GST on ground rent and the legality of the Construction Workers Welfare Cess demand are not detailed in this judgment, the disposal indicates that the Court's decision in the earlier batch of petitions addressed these matters. The operative direction was to dispose of the present writ petition in line with the prior ruling. The judgment does not explicitly state which issues were left undecided, but the disposal implies all issues raised were considered in the referenced prior order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand for GST on ground rent is legally sustainable under the Goods and Services Tax regime, considering the nature of ground rent as a statutory levy. The petitioners argued that GST is applicable to goods and services, and ground rent, being a statutory charge, should not be subject to GST. They contended that the demand for GST on ground rent is an overreach and lacks statutory backing. The revenue or State did not record any specific arguments on this point in the judgment. 2. Whether the demand for Construction Workers Welfare Cess is permissible in the absence of specific notification or delegation of power to the BBMP to collect such cess. The petitioners asserted that the collection of this cess requires a specific legal framework and delegation of authority, which they claimed was absent. The respondents did not present any arguments on this issue.