High Court of Karnataka
Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike v. PMJ Constructions (P.) Ltd
For revenueRemanded
High Court of Karnataka
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1478 OF 2025 (LB-TAX)
Where contractor sought reimbursement of increased tax liability after GST implementation under pre-GST contract with BBMP, but agreement required submission of proof of tax payment and GST law did not require certification by tax authorities, quantification without verification was improper and matter was to be decided after contractor submitted requisite documents to BBMP Commissioner
Section 5, read with section 20 of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Article 226 of Constitution of India, 1950
This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.
Members
The background, the issue before the court and the reasoning behind the decision are free for members — along with the professional discussion on this ruling.
Free to join. No card required.
Already a member? Sign in
Karnataka High Court
Where civil contractor executed road works under contract with State and, following GST replacing VAT, paid differential GST due to regime change, contractor became entitled to reimbursement of additional GST from beneficiary State entity, as liability to bear such tax rests on service recipient and reimbursement right extends only to tax attributable to GST regime introduction, subject to verification and law
Supreme Court
SLP was filed against order of High Court holding that where assessee assailed demand order and corrigendum to SCN including additional period in writ alleging illegality, since such issues involved factual examination of corrections under sections 160 and 161 and were already considered by adjudicating authority, in view of available alternate remedy of appeal, writ was not maintainable and petition was to be dismissed with liberty to avail appellate remedy; SC declined to interfere with HC order dismissing writ for alternative remedy and extended limitation, SLP was to be disposed of
Madras High Court
Where SEZ Unit's refund claim for unutilized input tax credit under Section 54 read with Rule 89 and Section 16 was rejected on ground refund provisions applied only to suppliers to SEZ, Rule 89(1) did not restrict such claims to suppliers, and SEZ Unit is eligible to claim refund of unutilized ITC in accordance with law