Facts of the Case

This is a contractual fee dispute, and the Court did not decide any GST law question — GST is simply a component of the amount claimed. The petitioner, an architect, had entered into an agreement dated 21 December 2010 with the Kannur Municipal Corporation for design work relating to the Corporation's office and town hall building, later formalised through a supplementary agreement dated 17 March 2022. He claimed entitlement to a consultancy fee of Rs. 1,30,22,370, plus applicable GST and interest, calculated as 2.33% of the Rs. 55.89 crore project estimate. Having submitted a representation (Ext.P20) on this claim, which remained undecided, he approached the High Court seeking both a mandamus to decide that representation and a declaration that he was entitled to the claimed fee plus GST.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a declaration from the High Court that he is owed the claimed consultancy fee (Rs. 1,30,22,370) plus GST and interest.
  2. Whether the Corporation should be directed to decide the petitioner's pending representation.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner sought a declaration that he was entitled to the consultancy fee of Rs. 1,30,22,370, plus its GST component, along with interest, computed as 2.33% of the Rs. 55.89 crore estimated project cost as per the 2010 agreement.
  • He had already submitted a representation (Ext.P20) before the Executive Engineer, which remained unaddressed.

Respondent's Arguments

The order does not record any substantive opposing submissions from the Corporation or the other respondents; the matter was disposed of by the Court's own direction after hearing both sides briefly.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court declined to grant the declaration sought regarding entitlement to the fee (including GST) and interest, and instead disposed of the writ petition by directing the concerned respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation (Ext.P20), after giving him a hearing, within one month.
  • No finding was recorded on whether the fee claimed, or the GST component of it, was in fact due.

Important Clarification

This order decides nothing about whether GST is payable on the architect's consultancy fee, or how much fee is actually owed — both questions were left entirely to the Municipal Corporation's own decision-making process. It is purely a mandamus directing timely consideration of a pending representation.

Sections Involved

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India — writ of mandamus sought and partly granted (to decide the representation).
  • GST on professional/consultancy services under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was referenced only as part of the fee amount claimed, without adjudication.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of without a decision on the merits of the fee claim — the petitioner secured only a direction that the Corporation decide his pending representation within a month, with no ruling on his entitlement to the amount (including GST) claimed.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 17010 of 2023
Coram: Hon'ble Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Date of Judgment: 29 May 2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.