TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 979
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a, praying as under: "a) To issue a writ of Certiorari or order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to set aside the Show Cause Notice bearing Reference No. ACCT-LGSTO-210/MDY/T.No.2023-24 dated 27.12.2023 issued by the Respondent no.2 for the relevant FY 2018-19 (Annexure-J); b) To issue a writ of Certiorari or order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to set aside the summary SCN in FORM GST DRC-01 dated 28.02.2023 bearing Reference no. ZD292230875057, issued by the Respondent no.2 for the relevant FY 2018-19 (Annexure-J1); c) To issue a writ of Certiorari or order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to set aside and quash the Impugned Order passed by Respondent no.2 under Section 73(9) of the KGST and CGST Act, 2017, dated 18.03.2024 bearing no. ACCT/LGSTO-20/MDY/T.No.2785/2023-24 for the relevant FY 2018-19 (Annexure-L); d) To issue a writ of Certiorari or order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to set aside and quash the summary of the impugned order in Form DRC-07 bearing reference no. ZD2903240478353, dated 19.03.2024 for the relevant FY 2018-19 (Annexure-L1); e) Alternatively, in the event the demand under S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt was entered into between the writ petitioner and the RDPR to revise the contracted rates to absorb the applicable GST. 6. The writ petitioner also claimed that it was unable to pay the GST to Appellant No.2 due to non-reimbursement of the differential amount by the RDPR. 7. Appellant No.2, the Assistant Commissioner of Local Goods and Service Tax, LGSTO-210, Mandya, conducted scrutiny of the writ petitioner's returns under Section 61 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [CGST Act] and the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [KGST Act] for the Financial Year 2018-19, and noticed a short payment of tax towards outward taxable supplies. Accordingly, the Respondent No. 2 issued an intimation notice dated 20.12.2023 in Form GST DRC-01A, but no response was received from the writ petitioner. 8. The writ petitioner furnished its reply to Appellant No.2, inter alia, stating that the amounts received from the RDPR under the Agreements included only the tax component at a rate of 4% under the KVAT regime, and that, in the absence of a supplementary agreement revising the contracted rates, it could not be made to bear the differential GST burden. It also clai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... iv The concerned respondents are directed to enter into the necessary Supplementary Tender Agreement and proceed further in accordance with law in terms of judgments of Chandrashekaraiah and M.G. Arun Kumar referred to in the body of this order." 15. As is apparent from the above, the writ petition was allowed following the earlier decision in the case of Sri Chandrashekaraiah and others V. The State of Karnataka and others [W.P. No. 9721/2019, dated 11.04.2023.] and Sri M.G. Arunkumar V. The State of Karnataka and another [W.P. No. 104908/2023, dated 29.08.2023] It is thus relevant to refer to the operative part of the decision in Sri Chandrashekaraiah (supra). The same is set out below: "20. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petitions are hereby disposed of. (ii) The Respondents-State and other Govt agencies / Respondents who have entered into works contract with the Petitioners are issued the following directions / guidelines:- (a) Calculate the works executed pre-GST (prior to 01.07.2017) under KVAT regime and payments received by the Petitioners. (b) The payments received by the Petitioners pre-GST for su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not filed their GST returns during the period after 01.07.2017 are permitted to file their returns/amended returns, pursuant to the calculation of the differential tax as per procedure above under GST regime, without insisting on interest or penalty or limitation. (vi) The GST authorities are also directed not to take precipitative action against the Petitioners for a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (vii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to challenge any order/decision passed/taken by the respondents or the authorities, subsequent to this order and also take recourse to such remedies as available in law." 16. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has confined the challenge to the impugned order on two fronts. First, it is submitted that the operative part of the order seeks to incorporate the directions issued in the case of Sri Chandrashekaraiah (supra), which also includes a direction enabling the writ petitioner to file GST returns/amended returns for the period after 01.07.2017 by calculating the differential tax in a manner as set out in the said order. Further, the interest and penalty have b....