M.G. Arunkumar Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court)
The Karnataka High Court considered a writ petition filed by a registered Civil Contractor aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent/Department in reimbursing 12% GST on the tender amount. The petitioner had been the successful bidder in the tender process, following which the respondent/Department accepted the petitioner’s bid and issued a work order on 24.03.2018. The petitioner claimed that he had completed the contracted work and that the respondent/Department, being the service recipient, was liable to reimburse GST at the rate of 12% on the total value of the completed work as mentioned in the agreement.
The petitioner had submitted a representation vide Annexure-E seeking payment of the GST amount. Despite receipt of the representation, the respondent/Department had not reimbursed GST at the rate of 12% on Rs.18,04,32,523/-, which amounted to Rs.2,16,51,903/-. The petitioner therefore approached the High Court seeking relief against the alleged non-payment of the GST amount.
The High Court noted that it was not in dispute that the entire tender process and allocation of work by the respondent/Department took place after the coming into force of GST. The Court further recorded that the petitioner was a registered Civil Contractor and that, having completed the tender work, the respondent/Department, as service recipient, was under a bounden duty to reimburse the GST amount of Rs.2,16,51,903/- in terms of Section 13 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The Court also recorded that the petitioner, being a class-I contractor having rendered the service, was under a mandatory duty to pay GST to the Department and that, correspondingly, the respondent/Department was under a bounden duty to reimburse the GST amount. The records demonstrated, according to the Court, that since the applicable GST payment at the petitioner’s end was a statutory requirement, the respondent/Department ought to have reimbursed 12% GST on the total work done by the petitioner.
The High Court found that there was total inaction on the part of the respondent/Department. It therefore held that the case was a fit case for issuance of a writ of mandamus. The Court proceeded to allow the writ petition and directed the respondent to reimburse the GST amount indicated in the representation dated 15.04.2023 vide Annexure-E.
The respondent/Department was further directed to reimburse the said amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The operative relief was therefore confined to directing reimbursement of the GST amount stated in the petitioner’s representation.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
The captioned writ petition is filed by registered Civil Contractor feeling aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent/Department for having failed to reimburse 12% GST on the tender amount.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under: The petitioner who is a registered Civil Contractor was found to be successful bidder and respondent/Department having accepted petitioner’s bid, issued work order on 24.03.2018. Petitioner claimed that he has carried out the work and respondent/Department who is the service recipient is liable to pay GST at the rate of 12% on the total value of the cost of completed work as mentioned in the agreement.
3. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the non- payment of GST amount has submitted a representation vide Annexure-E. Inspite of receipt of representation, respondent/Department has not reimbursed the GST amount at the rate of 12% on Rs.18,04,32,523/- amounting to Rs.2,16,51,903/-.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents.
5. It is not in dispute that the entire tender process and allocation of work by respondent/Department is post coming into force of Goods and Services Tax. If petitioner, who is a registered Civil Contractor has completed the tender work, respondent/Department being a service recipient is under bounden duty to reimburse GST amount of Rs.2,16,51,903/- in terms of Section 13 of The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It is also not in dispute that petitioner, who is a class-I contractor having rendered service, is under mandatory duty to pay GST amount to the department. Equally respondent/Department is under bounden duty to reimburse the GST amount. It is borne out from the records that since necessary payment at the petitioner’s end the applicable GST being statutory requirement, the respondent/Department ought to have reimbursed 12% GST amount on the total work done by petitioner. Since, there is total inaction on the part of respondent/Department, this is a fit case where mandamus needs to be issued. For the reasons stated supra, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed.
ii) The respondent is hereby directed to reimburse GST amount as indicated in the representation dated 15.04.2023 vide Annexure-E.
iii) The respondent/Department shall reimburse the said amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
