TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1908
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to as BBMP] have filed the present appeal impugning the order dated 25.07.2025 [impugned order] passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.461/2023 (LB-TAX). The respondent had filed the said writ petition, inter alia, praying as under : "A) Direct, by an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ or direction or order, the respondents to reimburse the differential Goods and Service Tax (GST) @ 8% to the petitioner; (B) Direct the respondents by an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order, if any, to pay the interest on the tax (GST) dues at the rate of 18% per annum being the statutory interest rate chargeable under Section 50 of CGST. Act, 2017; And ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under: "8. Taxes and Duties The Lump Sum (L.S.) Amount for which the Tender is approved shall be inclusive of all Expenses for the proper and entire Completion of the Work and shall be inclusive of all Taxes. Duties and Levies including Sales Tax, Municipal Taxes. Local Taxes. Octroi, all Royalties, Patent Rights. other Incidental Charges. etc. The Tenderer may consider Taxes, Duties. Royalties, etc. for the Purpose of Tendering prevailing one month earlier to the Date of Submission of the Tender. Subsequent Changes affected either by Government of Karnataka or Government of India. the Employer may consider Reimbursement of such Increase in the Taxes, Duties. Royalties. etc. upon proper Certification from Appropriate Tax A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espect to the value of works that were subjected to GST. The court also referred to the earlier decision in M/s. M. Venkata Rao Infra Projects Private Limited v. The Executive Engineer and another : WP.No.2788/2025 (LB-BMP) decided on 25.07.2025, which in turn referred to the earlier decision in Chandrashekariah v. State of Karnataka [2024] 158 taxmann.com 443 (Karnataka). 7. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that the contract price was inclusive of taxes that were leviable prior to 01.07.2017. And the respondent would be entitled to reimbursement of the incremental tax it had to pay on account of the enactment of the GST Acts. Whilst BBMP does not dispute that, in principle, the contractor may be entitled to reimbursement of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e tax subsumed in the contract price) paid by the respondent. However, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is documentary evidence on record to substantiate the same. BBMP is also aggrieved as it had no opportunity to examine whether the documents as produced sufficiently establish that the respondent had paid the incremental tax to the extent of Rs. 2,23,23,979.92. It is also contended on behalf of BBMP that any dispute as to the issue whether such incremental tax had been paid could not be decided in a writ petition. We find merit in this contention. 11. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside. The respondent is at liberty to furnish all documents to substantiate its claim for reimbursement of increm....