Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2021 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1505 - KERALA HIGH COURTNon-inclusion of component of tax for GST at the time of quoting the tender - Petitioner contends that when the bill was submitted, respondents refused to pay the component of GST - HELD THAT:- The notice inviting tender produced as Ext. P1 is specific to the work in question. The mind of the employer in a contract is made evident through the notice inviting tender. Though the notice inviting tender is not by itself binding upon the parties, when the said document is acted upon by another party to the contract there arises certain binding obligations, based purely upon the terms specified in Ext. P1. De hors what happened before or after, the terms in Ext. P1 are required to be abided with. The bidders cannot vary or detract from the terms specified in that document. Viewed in the above perspective, irrespective of the Government order issued as G.O. (P) No. 2/2018/PWD dated 27.01.2018, if the 2nd respondent proceeded with the tender in question, incorporating specific terms that the bids must quote rates 'except' GST in Clause 3.3.3 as extracted earlier, it cannot be gainsaid later, by the employer to the contract, that the bids ought to have quoted rates including GST. It needs no elaboration to conclude that the said terms "except goods and service tax" being specific to the contract in question must govern the terms and conditions of the contract. It is apposite to refer to the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Appeal No. 445 of 2018 dated 18.12.2019. The said decision is reported as C.A. George V. State of Kerala and Others [2019 (12) TMI 1655 - KERALA HIGH COURT]. Though the situation in the abovesaid case was slightly different, the issue considered by the Court was whether the petitioner in that case was called upon to give the bid amount without the taxes or as exclusive of the taxes. After referring to the issues involved therein it was held by this Court that "the conditions of the notice inviting tender by itself does not amount to a contract. A contract comes into existence only when the price quoted by the contractor is accepted by the department. In the document which provides for the price bid, when there is clear instruction that the price should be without taxes, the bidder cannot be blamed for having not incorporated the tax element in the bid document. The claim of the writ petitioner is justifiable and Ext. P9 is contrary to the settled propositions of law - It is declared that the terms and conditions contained in Ext. P1 shall govern contract for the work titled NABARD RIDF XXII Infrastructural works in Kurinjikkal Construction of Bridge across Puzhakkalthodu and set aside Ext. P9 - It is also held that petitioner was not bound to include GST in the bid quoted by him pursuant to Ext. P1 NIT. Petition allowed.
|