9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IMITED AND ORS VERSUS SEBASTIAN JOSE AND ORS. [ 2022 (6) TMI 1415 - KERALA HIGH COURT] has specifically considered an identical issue. It was found that the petitioner therein had bid for the work and had quoted the amount specifically excluding the component of GST from the quote in view of the condition contained in the notice inviting tender. It was further found that GST being a tax to be suffered by the ultimate beneficiary, the Corporation for whom the work is done by the contractor has to remit the same. It was held that The learned single judge was right in declaring that the GST component was not to be included as per clause 3.3.3 of Ext.P1 and the direction to pay the GST component by respondents 2 and 3 is in tune with the clau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a limited company engaged in the business of construction and that the Kerala State Transport Project (for short, 'the KSTP') is a special purpose agent set up by the Government of Kerala for the purpose of road development utilising funds from the World Bank in the State. It is submitted that the KSTP invited tenders under the Kerala Rebuild initiative funded by the World Bank. The bids were for upgradation of Painavu Thannikandom Ashoka Kavala road (Km 0+000 to Km 21+000) and BC Overlay of Adoor to Chengannoor (Part of SH-1) Km + 93 + 400 (Adoor) to Km 117 + 200 (Chengannoor) having contract values of Rs.95.40 Crores and Rs.98.10 Crores respectively. It is s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovided to furnish the GST amount along with the bid. 5. The petitioner submitted his bid in the online format with regard to the upgradation of Painavu Thannikandom Ashoka Kavala road as per Exts.P2 and P3 in W.P.(C) No.12471/2021 and the price quoted was Rs.95,40,00,000/- excluding GST. The tender was accepted and performance guarantee was required to be executed by Exts.P4 and P5. Contract agreement was also entered into. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a request to the KSTP to pay the 1st instalment of the bill raised inclusive of GST at the rate of 12%. However, the KSTP approved only an amount equal to 2% of the contract price deducting the GST claim. The petitioner approached the respondents, but Ext.P8 reply was issued r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the rates including GST. Referring to an earlier decision of a Division Bench of this Court in George C.A. v. State of Kerala and Others [2021 KHC 2682], the learned Single Judge held that in the document which provides for the price bid, when there is a clear instruction that the price should be quoted without taxes, the bidder cannot be blamed for not having incorporated the tax element in the bid document. The Division Bench in George C.A.'s case held that the fact that other contractors had quoted the rates inclusive of taxes would not make any difference to the situation since the conditions in the bid documents specifically provided for quoting of rates without taxes. The decision in Sebastian Jose's case had been taken in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that all that is excluded from the contract price is the cost of maintenance as stated in Clause 19.1.1. It is contended that the petitioner having entered into a contract knowing fully well his liability to pay the GST cannot be permitted to derive benefits from an error committed by the respondents. 10. The learned Standing Counsel also places reliance on a judgment of this Court dated 20.3.2019 in W.P.(C) No.27226/2018, where this Court had considered the contentions that the difference between the 4% of Value Added Tax which was in existence at the time of the bid and the 12% GST which was made applicable later was to be paid by the contractor. 11. Having considered the contentions advanced, I notice that it is the specific ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rbitrary and for any extraneous consideration. In this case, the learned Single Judge has not gone into the complexities of the clauses in the notice inviting tender nor substituted any interpretation other than those explicitly provided in the clause. In such view of the matter, the decisions cited (supra) have no application to the facts of this case and are distinguishable. The learned single judge was right in declaring that the GST component was not to be included as per clause 3.3.3 of Ext.P1 and the direction to pay the GST component by respondents 2 and 3 is in tune with the clauses of Ext.P1 and hence there are no ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, and hence the writ appeal is dismissed. The ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
