Mandamus available for enforceable public duties; tender GST/HSN classification rests with bidders, contract papers sent to tax officer

SC allowed the appeal and reversed the High Court's interference. The Court held writ of mandamus may issue where an enforceable public duty exists, but technicalities cannot bar relief; nonetheless here the classification and GST/HSN determination in tenders is primarily the bidders' responsibility and not a mandatory public duty of the procuring authority. The reverse-charge and payment rules protect public interest where tax is under- or mis-stated. The SC directed successful-contract documents be forwarded to the jurisdictional tax officer to ensure tax compliance, and restrained the impugned judgment from displacing the procurement regime.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court erred in issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the appellants to clarify the HSN Code with GST authorities.
2. The applicability and interpretation of the tender clauses related to GST rates.
3. The impact of the 'Make in India' policy on the tender process.
4. The relevance of the Railway Board's circular dated 05.09.2017.
5. The feasibility of the appellants seeking clarification from GST authorities under Section 168 of the GST Act.
6. The implications of other tenders issued by different units of the Indian Railways containing the HSN Code.
7. The effect of the reverse charge mechanism under Section 9(3) of the GST Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the High Court erred in issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the appellants to clarify the HSN Code with GST authorities:
The Supreme Court held that a Writ of Mandamus or a direction in the nature thereof is not to be withheld on technicalities, provided there is a public duty. However, the Court found that the High Court erred in issuing the direction as there was no statutory or public duty imposed on the appellants to clarify the HSN Code with GST authorities. The Court emphasized that the liability to pay tax under the GST regime lies with the supplier, and there was no obligation on the appellants to ascertain the correct HSN Code.

2. The applicability and interpretation of the tender clauses related to GST rates:
The Court analyzed the relevant tender clauses, including Clauses 2.7.6, 2.8.6.2, and 2.9.2, and concluded that the bidders were required to quote the applicable GST rates. Clause 2.9.2, in particular, allowed bidders to quote a lump sum rate without including the tax component. The Court found that the terms of the tender were clear and did not leave the bidders or the appellants in any uncertainty.

3. The impact of the 'Make in India' policy on the tender process:
The Court acknowledged the significance of the 'Make in India' policy but found that it did not justify the inclusion of the HSN Code in the tender conditions. The definition of 'local content' in the policy excluded domestic indirect taxes, and the Court concluded that there was no duty to declare the HSN Code for GST purposes in the tender.

4. The relevance of the Railway Board's circular dated 05.09.2017:
The Court examined the Railway Board's circular and found that it allowed the purchaser to incorporate the HSN Number in the tender document but did not make it mandatory. The responsibility to quote the correct HSN Number and corresponding GST rate was on the bidder. The Court concluded that the circular did not enshrine a public duty enforceable by Mandamus.

5. The feasibility of the appellants seeking clarification from GST authorities under Section 168 of the GST Act:
The Court found that Section 168 of the GST Act did not provide for a right to seek clarification as directed by the High Court. The provision for advance ruling under Sections 96 to 103 of the GST Act involved a cumbersome and elaborate process, making the High Court's direction impractical.

6. The implications of other tenders issued by different units of the Indian Railways containing the HSN Code:
The Court noted that other units of the Indian Railways had issued tenders with indicative HSN Codes, but these tenders also placed the responsibility on the bidder to quote the correct HSN Code and GST rate. The Court found that this did not create a public duty to provide the correct HSN Code in the tender.

7. The effect of the reverse charge mechanism under Section 9(3) of the GST Act:
The Court acknowledged that under the reverse charge mechanism, the liability to pay tax is on the recipient of the goods or services. However, this aspect did not support the writ petitioner's case, as it was the appellants' responsibility to ensure the lowest cost in public interest.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed that in all cases where a contract is awarded by the appellants, a copy of the contract document containing all material details shall be forwarded to the concerned jurisdictional Officer. The appellants were also directed to ensure compliance with this direction by all units.

---