2024 (10) TMI 1490 - HC - GST

Challenge to corrigendum issued by opposite party no.3 - reimbursement of additional tax which has already been deducted from its running bills and to be deducted from final bills after coming into force of the Goods and Service tax, as per the claim of the petitioner and in view of the office memorandum - HED THAT - This Court finds that payability of GST amount is under consideration, which emanates from the terms and conditions of the contract floated in the tender documents and subsequently corrigendum issued by the authority. Thereby, any dispute with regard to payment of tax, which forms part of the tender documents, can only be resolved as per the terms and conditions prescribed in the tender documents. Since there is disputed questions of fact with regard to payment of GST amount, the same can be resolved by the competent forum in terms of the DTCN/agreement executed between the parties and, as such, this Court is not inclined entertain this writ petition. However, the petitioner is permitted to approach the appropriate forum in terms of the DTCN/agreement, which is applicable to it for realization of GST amount, pursuant to the tender call notice issued by the authority under Annexure-1 and corrigendum under Annexure-5. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of corrigendum dated 09.01.2018 issued by opposite party no.3
2. Direction to reimburse additional tax deducted from running bills
3. Applicability of Goods and Service Tax (GST) as per tender documents
4. Dispute resolution mechanism for payment of GST amount

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the corrigendum dated 09.01.2018 and to direct the opposite parties to reimburse the additional tax deducted from its running bills post-GST implementation. The petitioner contended that the corrigendum changing the tax payment terms after the tender process was arbitrary and contrary to law. The opposite parties argued that the petitioner is bound by the terms of the tender documents even after the corrigendum. The Court noted that the payability of GST arises from the tender terms and the subsequent corrigendum. It held that any dispute regarding tax payment should be resolved as per the tender terms and conditions. As there were factual disputes, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition but allowed the petitioner to seek resolution through the appropriate forum as per the agreement executed between the parties. The Court emphasized that claims should be adjudicated based on the tender document's terms and conditions, including clause-41.1.

This judgment primarily addressed the validity of the corrigendum, the applicability of GST as per the tender terms, and the dispute resolution mechanism for the GST amount. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the terms and conditions of the tender documents and held that any disputes regarding tax payment should be resolved through the agreed mechanisms. The judgment highlights the need for parties to follow the contractual obligations and utilize the specified dispute resolution procedures for resolving tax-related issues arising from tender processes.