9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated that: "1. Prices in INR including customs duty, packaging, forwarding, freight & insurance. 2. CST (Central sales tax) is inclusive in the above prices. AIR will have to give concessional forms C/D. 3. Billing will be done from our Noida office. 4. Validity of offer up to 120 days from the date of opening (i.e. up to June 16, 2007)." The quotation given by BECIL was for Rs. 47.35 crores and it was stated that: "1. Prices in INR. FOR destination, including freight, insurance and customs duty. 2. Sales tax extra at four per cent. against form C/D. 3. Sales tax extra at 12.5 per cent. in case form C/D is not provided. 4. Validity of offer up to May 31, 2007." For the purposes of this decision, we are only concerned with the sales tax element in the price bid. We may note, as a matter of fact, that there is no dispute that form C under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is not relevant to the facts of the case and form D under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was abolished with effect from April 1, 2007. There is also no dispute that the bids of Arraycom and BECIL were valid and subsisting at all material times. Since the bid of Arraycom was inclusive of sales tax, while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sales tax liability was mentioned in the following words: Sales tax extra at four per cent. against form C/D. Sales tax extra at 12.5 per cent. in case form C/D is not provided. Undoubtedly, as far as BECIL is concerned, if it were provided forms C/ D, then it would load four per cent. to the basic price. Admittedly, since Form C is not relevant to the facts of the case and Form D was abolished with effect from April 1, 2007 the basic price of BECIL would necessarily have to be loaded with 12.5 per cent. sales tax making its bid Rs. 53.66 crores. This is as against the bid of Arraycom of Rs. 51.57 crores. Looked at from this point of view, clearly the quoted price of Arraycom is lower than the quoted price of BECIL, making its bid lower by Rs. 2 crores and, therefore, entitling Arraycom to the award of the contract. Is the interpretation given to the bid of Arraycom by its learned counsel correct or not-meaning thereby that would it be correct to say that under all circumstances, Arraycom's bid could not be more than the quoted price of Rs. 51.57 crores? The answer to this is in the affirmative. Clause 4.2 of the NIT states as follows: "The statutory charges w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndia and DGS&D-229 relating to special conditions for imported stores, as amended up to date in so far as they are applicable and not inconsistent with the conditions mentioned in the tender document." A bare reading of this does not explain how clause 9.II of Form DGS&D-230 being instructions to tenderers quoting against tender enquiries issued by DGS&D and its regional offices is "expressly applicable" to the NIT. Nor did learned counsel for Arraycom explain to us how this would be applicable to the NIT that we are dealing with. We, therefore, decline to entertain the submission based on clause 9.II of form DGS&D-230. The alternative submission of learned counsel for Arraycom was that if the bid of his client has to be read and understood in the manner suggested by learned counsel for Prasar Bharati, then and only then would the question of the amount of sales tax to be added to the bid of Arraycom arise. It may be recalled that learned counsel for Prasar Bharati suggested that the sales tax element in the bid of Arraycom, which reads as CST (Central sales tax) is inclusive in the above prices. AIR will have to give concessional forms C/D ought to be read as CST (Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ensive statement about judicial review by Lord Denning is very apposite; it is perhaps worthwhile noting that he stresses the supervisory nature of the jurisdiction: 'Parliament often entrusts the decision of a matter to a specified person or body, without providing for any appeal. It may be a judicial decision, or a quasi judicial decision, or an administrative decision. Sometimes Parliament says its decision is to be final. At other times it says nothing about it. In all these cases the courts will not themselves take the place of the body to whom Parliament has entrusted the decision. The courts will not themselves embark on a rehearing of the matter. See Healey v. Ministry of Health [1954] 3 All ER 449. But nevertheless, the courts will, if called upon, act in a supervisory capacity. They will see that the decision-making body acts fairly. See Re K.H. (an infant) [1967] 1 All ER 226, and R. v. Gaming Board for Great Britain, ex parte Benaim [1970] 2 All ER 528. The courts will ensure that the body acts in accordance with the law. If a question arises on the interpretation of words, the courts will decide it by declaring what is the correct interpretation. See Punton v. Mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
