9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 25.06.2020. 3. Vide the said order, this Court had directed the petitioner to approach the respondent No. 2 by way of a representation and the respondent No. 2 in-turn to take a decision on the representation that the Petitioner has made for refund of the additional tax burden suffered by the petitioner in the light of introduction of the GST regime w.e.f. 1st July, 2017 onwards. 4. The facts in brief is that the petitioner who is otherwise a Contractor taking contracts of civil natures with the respondents, one such NIT was floated by the respondents-Department on 02.02.2017 for different works. The petitioner was found the successful bidder for Nine such work published in the NIT. Nine separate work Orders were issued on 14.06.2017. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... included in BOQ. GST as applicable time to time will be paid to the Contractor during payment of running/final bills as rate quoted by Contractor." 8. There was a similar order issued under the Urban Administration Department on 21.12.2017 (Annexure P/14), wherein also the Government had passed an order of similar nature Annexure P/14 of the said writ petition, which for ready reference is being reproduced here-in-under:- कर्य विभाग मैन्यूअल के एपेन्डिक्स 2.1 के क्लॉज क्रमांक 7.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground that the terms of the contract at the time of the execution of the work, did not provide for any such conditions of reimbursement. That in the said contract, the burden of payment of tax was that on the Contractor. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the order passed by the Respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner vide the impugned order is as under:- 10. A development that has subsequently transpired recently is that the Water Resources Department of the Government of Chhattisgarh itself now vide order dated 30.09.2022 has amended the terms and conditions of the contract and has amended the clause 2.17.1. For ready reference of Clause 2.17.1 and its amended portion is under:- कंडि ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the land. However, if any other New Tax of levy or cess is imposed by statute or any deviation in existing royalty/ tax/ levy/ cess/ GST after the last stipulated date for the receipt of the tender including extensions, if any, shall be treated as New Tax and the Contractor there upon necessarily and properly pay such new taxes/levies/cess/GST/roy alties. The Engineer in charge shall reimburse the amount of such "New Tax" on submission of proof of such payments of tax by the Contractor (deducted in case of decrease in existing taxes). यह आदेश जारी होने की तिथि से तत्का&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red on account of the imposition of a new tax, the Department has to have a mechanism of compensating the Contractor to the extent of the additional tax liability that the Contractor had to bare. 14. It goes without saying that this aspect has been fairly appreciated by the Government itself and had taken a decision of reimbursing the additional tax burden to the Contractors when they had issued Orders for the various Departments under the State Government like: PWD, Chhattisgarh Rural and Development Agency and Chhattisgarh Urban Administration and Development Department and subsequently now vide the order dated 30.09.2022 in the Water Resource Department as well. 15. It is also relevant to take note of the submission made by the Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Department instead of passing orders Department wise taking into consideration the fact that the issue is of Policy matter rather than an individual dispute of a Contractor. 17. Though the State Counsel tried to justify the impugned order on the ground that the Water Resource Department could not have done anything without a policy decision by the Government and that all the claims of the petitioner have been settled strictly in accordance with the terms of contracts. In the contract that was entered into with the petitioner, there was a specific clause i.e. 2.17.1 wherein the entire liability of payment of tax of any nature was that on the Contractor. Therefore, according to the State Counsel, the decision by the respondents while pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
