TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as such no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. Power to issue such GO - HELD THAT:- The tender notification issued by the 2nd respondent is governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and Section 21 of the said Act empowers the authority to issue any Government Order for the purpose of removing any difficulties in the implementing the Act and in view of the introduction of GST, in order to remove the difficulties, the impugned GO came to be issued and hence, it cannot be contended that the 1st respondent had no jurisdiction to issue such a GO. Violation of principles of Natural Justice - HELD THAT:- The impugned order has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice is also cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that, it is only a general GO issued in respect of the existing contractors who have entered into agreements prior to the implementation of GST. As already held, the impugned Go has been issued only to remove the difficulties in implementing the GST regime. Petition dismissed. - Writ Petition No.2307 of 2018 And W.M.P.No.2823 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 28-1-2019 - MR. JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... follows:~ In case during the execution of works GST is implemented the difference between GST paid and the sum of all the taxes subsumed under GST applicable at the time of bidding shall be absorbed by the TWAD board on production of payment receipt of GST towards the goods and services on the respective item executed under the tender. The rate difference absorption mechanism will require additional payment or recovery as the case may be. #147; 3. The aforesaid amendment was also incorporation in the bid document as a condition under Clause 48.1. Based on the above said condition, the petitioner had participated in the tender and he was declared as successful bidder and the work was awarded to him on 16.06.2017. Thereafter, GST regime was brought into force w.e.f. 01.07.2017 fixing the rate of tax on basic price at 18% which was subsequently reduced to 12% for the work awarded to the petitioner. All the taxes applicable at the time of bidding have been subsumed under GST. After the commencement of work, the petitioner had raised bills as per Clause 48.1 of the bid document. 4. In the mean time, the 1st respondent had issued the impugned Government Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ein it has been stated that pending notification of guidelines, all departments and procuring entity shall make on account payment of bills presented by the contractors restricting the payment to the value due as per the existing contract agreements and any difference on account of final payment due based on the guidelines to be issued, and the on account payment made alone may be adjusted out of the 5% amount retained with the procuring entity. Subsequently, in G.O.Ms.No.296 dated 09.10.2017, guidelines have been issued regarding implementation of GST. In and by the said GO, instructions have been issued to negotiate with work contractors and enter into a supplemental agreements with revised agreement value fixed as the original contracted value minus the value of subsumed tax arrived plus the GST applicable. In case, if on account payment is made as in G.O.Ms.No.264 dated 15.09.2017, the excess payment may be adjusted in the 5% amount retained by the procuring entities. Following the above said GO, the other two impugned proceedings have been issued by the 2nd and 3rd respondents respectively for executing the supplemental agreement. 6. It is further contended tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould contend that the Government Orders impugned in the instant writ petitions which compel the petitioner to execute supplemental agreement are not at all valid in the eye of law and it cannot be made applicable to the existing contractors, like the petitioner and the parties are bound by the earlier contract. That apart, the petitioner also cannot be compelled to execute supplemental agreement which would cause total uncertainty as the petitioner has acted upon as per the terms and conditions of the original agreement. Further, according to the learned senior counsel, the Government Order impugned in the writ petition has also given unfettered power to deduct the differential amount of the tax from the bills raised by contractors without obtaining any consent from them. At any rate, before issuing the impugned Government Orders, the board ought to have given notice to the petitioner and as such the impugned Government Orders, which have been issued without hearing the petitioner, are contrary to the principles of natural justice and the same are therefore, liable to be quashed. 9. Per contra, Mr.P.H.Arvindh Pandian, the learned Aditional Advocate General contended t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in view of the introduction of GST, in order to remove the difficulties, the impugned GO came to be issued and hence, it cannot be contended that the 1st respondent had no jurisdiction to issue such a GO. 13. The next contention of the learned senior counsel is that the impugned order has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice is also cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that, it is only a general GO issued in respect of the existing contractors who have entered into agreements prior to the implementation of GST. As already held, the impugned Go has been issued only to remove the difficulties in implementing the GST regime. Now, it is also made clear that by way of impugned GO, the respondent board was directed to initiate the negotiation with the existing contractors before entering into supplemental agreements and hence, it is always open to the petitioner to appear before the respondent concerned and submit his objection before entering into any supplemental agreement. 14. For the foregoing discussions, this court finds no merit in the writ petition and the same deserves only to be dismissed. 15. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
