TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1523
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant to make good GST after adjusting the amounts of sales tax as provided in the contract document in the light of clarification dated 03.01.2020 issued by the Managing Director, Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development & Finance Corporation. 2. Learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the appellant drawing attention of the court to clause 39 of the contract document argues that the rates quoted by the respondent shall be deemed to be inclusive of the taxes and therefore the question of reimbursement thereof does not arise. Secondly, he banks upon the Arbitration Clause engrafted in the document to contend that writ court ought not to have granted indulgence in the matter and instead should have relegated the respondent to arbitration....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has also been referred to. This stand has been approved by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Finance Department. The clarification made in the context of an authority set up under a statute and taking not of the clarification made by the KUIDFC, the respondent is required to act in terms of the clarification made. 10. Further, insofar as tax component is concerned, as the contracts were entered after coming into force of the GST Act, and in light of the opinion expressed by a clarification made on 03.01.2020, the respondent is required to make good the GST after adjusting the amounts of sales tax that was provided for in the contract entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. 11. It is further to be noticed th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contract document incorporates an arbitration clause and therefore the dispute in question ought to have been relegated to arbitration, is difficult to countenance. Existence of arbitration clause is one thing and existence of dispute is another. Both need to concur to non-suit the writ petitioner so that he can invoke arbitration clause. In the absence of a dispute in view of Clarificatory Circular, the question of relegating the respondent contractor to arbitration even remotely would not arise. Such a view gains support from M. CHIRANJEEVI vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA [MANU/KA/3973/2022]. It is not that every question raised ipso facto amounts to a dispute. If the question can be answered by referring to statute or instruments of law as br....