SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 1955

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
M.Nagaprasanna, J.
M/S Gurumallappa And Company - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Department Of Finance – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 102376 of 2025 (T-RES)
Decided On : 15-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. Naveen G. S., Advocate
For the Respondent: Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, Hcgp, Sri. Sunil S. Desai, Adv.

The court affirmed the applicability of prior tax assessment rules over new GST regulations for works contracts executed prior to GST implementation, ensuring equitable treatment for contractors regarding differential GST burdens.

Headnote:(A) Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - The Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Differential GST burden on works contracts executed under VAT regime - Petitioners seek reimbursement of differential GST following prior rulings - Court recognizes method of tax assessment post-GST implementation and directs adherence to existing guidelines regarding tax obligations - Issue of applicable laws for contracts prior to GST highlighted - Court states: "the subject petition also stands disposed." (Paras 1, 10, 11, 12)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Writ relief sought against government for differential taxation - Court affirms jurisdiction to direct adherence to established taxation policies in prior judgments. (Paras 3, 4, 8)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners are contractors seeking reimbursement for differential GST amounts arising post-introduction of GST on 1-7-2017. They contend that the introduction of GST creates an unwarranted additional burden on contracts executed prior to this date and have submitted multiple representations for relief.

Findings of Court:
The Court notes that issues raised are already addressed in earlier judgments which dictate management of tax liability under prior VAT laws, providing clarity on the taxation for contracts executed before GST.

Issues: The main issues were the transferability of tax burdens from VAT to GST and the appropriate methodology for tax assessments on completed works contracts prior to the GST regime.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determines that the previous judgment's approach is applicable, emphasizing the obligation of the government to follow established practices and ensure contractors are treated equitably regarding tax burdens as per prior contracts.

Result: Petition disposed of in favor of the Petitioners.

ORDER :

M.Nagaprasanna, J.

1. The petitioner is before this court seeking the following prayer:

“(a) Issue a writ or such other order in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 and 3 to reimburse/pay the differential GST amount (being the difference between GST and VAT) by complying with the order of this Hon'ble Court in WP No. 9721/2019 and Other connected matters disposed on 11.04.2023, followed by the orders passed in WP No. 8489/2023, and WP No. 13167/2024 as per the representations dated 04.09.2023, 21.06.2024 and 01.10.2024 produced at ANNEXURE-D (colly);

(b) Issue a writ or such other order directing the Respondent No.1 State Govt, to issue a circular/policy to address the issue of payment of GST on works contract which are executed under VAT regime wherein, GST is not paid by the Respondents 2 and 3 but is levied and paid by the Petitioner to the GST department.

(c) Pass such other orders as may be deemed appropriate under the circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice.”

2. Heard Sri.Naveen G.S., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and Sri.Sunila S. Desai, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the parties in unison would submit that, the issue in the lis stands covered by judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.9721/2019 and connected matters disposed off on 11th April, 2023. The Coordinate Bench of this Court held as follows:

“1. Since common questions of law and fact arise for consideration in all these petitions, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common order. Further, since identical relief's are sought for in the petitions, for the purpose of convenience, the relief's sought for in W.P.9721/2019 is reproduced as under;-

"(a) Declare that the provisions of GST Act is inapplicable in respect of works contract where 'provisions of service' are made prior to 1-7-2017 in so far as petitioners are concerned and consequently that the respondent Nos 4 to 8 have no jurisdiction to either issue notice or to take any coercive steps against the Petitioners under the provisions of the GST Act dated 1-7-2017 produced as Annexure-H;

(b) Declare that the provisions of Section 7 (3) read with clause 6 of Schedule II of the GST Act is ultra-vires Article 366 (12A), (26A) (29A) (b) & (1) the Constitution in view of and settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding "works contract" and consequently that the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 have no jurisdiction to either issue notice or to take any coercive steps against the Petitioners under the provisions of the GST Act for 'works contract" entered into post 1-7-2017 Le. after the GST Act came into effect which is produced as Annexure H; and

(c) Direct the respondent No. 1 to consider the representations as per Annexure - C-1, Annexure-C-2 and Annexure-C-3 all dated 24-11-2018 in tandem with Annexures - D, E1 to E6; and

(d) Pass such other orders as may be deemed appropriate under the circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice."

2. The main issue involved in these petitions arises out of the grievance of the Petitioners that in view of the introduction of GST w.e.f 1-7-2017, the Petitioners who have earlier entered into "Works Contract" and had been assessed during the pre-GST regime either under the Composition scheme (COT scheme) or regular VAT assessment scheme (for short 'the VAT scheme') under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short 'the KVAT Act') are required and made liable to pay additional tax by way of GST after 1- 7-2017, which is a huge differential tax burden not envisaged at the time of entering into agreements under the COT/KVAT schemes during the KVAT regime and as such, petitioners are before this Court by way of these petitions.

3. The Petitioners herein are class-l contractors who have entered into 'works contract with various State Govt agencies as employers and petition

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top