HC dismisses GST refund petitions for pre-GST contracts with inclusive pricing clauses covering all duties and levies

The HC dismissed petitions seeking GST refund on work orders executed under pre-GST rate contracts. The court held that contracts specifying prices inclusive of "all duty, levies such as VAT, Excise Duty, etc." bound suppliers to bear GST costs despite the taxation regime change. The contractual clause covering "similar other statutory levy" encompassed GST as a replacement for previous indirect taxes, not an additional burden. The court ruled that commercial contracts inherently include calculated business risks including tax variations, and price escalation clauses cannot be implied merely due to new taxation systems replacing earlier ones.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Liability of the contractor/bidder to bear taxes under the GST regime.
2. Interpretation of the contractual clause regarding tax liabilities.
3. Applicability of retrospective operation of tax laws or circulars.
4. Commercial viability and business efficacy of the contract.

Summary:

1. Liability of the contractor/bidder to bear taxes under the GST regime:
The petitioner participated in tender processes and was the successful bidder. The contracts specified that the contractor/bidder was to bear all statutory levies, including Income Tax, VAT, Sales Tax, Royalty, and Construction Workers' Welfare Cess. With the introduction of the GST Act, the petitioner argued that additional taxes were imposed beyond the contract's contemplation and sought a refund of GST payments. However, the court held that the GST Act merely replaced other indirect taxes and did not alter the contract terms. The petitioner was liable to pay taxes under the GST regime as per the statute and the contract.

2. Interpretation of the contractual clause regarding tax liabilities:
The court examined the relevant clause in the contracts, which stated that the contractor/bidder should bear all statutory levies and quote rates accordingly. The clause did not restrict the taxes to those applicable "as on that date." The court emphasized that the terms of the contract must be strictly construed and given their natural meaning. The GST regime subsumed the previous indirect taxes, and the petitioner's liability to bear all such taxes remained unchanged.

3. Applicability of retrospective operation of tax laws or circulars:
The petitioner argued against the retrospective operation of an oppressive circular, citing the principle that beneficial circulars should be applied retrospectively while oppressive ones prospectively. The court clarified that the respondents did not seek retrospective application of any law but insisted on the petitioner's liability to pay taxes under the current tax regime. The payment of GST was required only from the introduction of the GST law, not retrospectively.

4. Commercial viability and business efficacy of the contract:
The petitioner contended that the contract should be interpreted to maintain its commercial viability and efficacy. The court noted that the taxation clause was unambiguous and required no external aid for interpretation. The contract's terms clearly indicated that all indirect taxes, including those subsumed by the GST Act, were to be borne by the petitioner. The introduction of the GST regime did not introduce a new liability but replaced existing taxes. The court rejected the argument that the petitioner was absolved of tax liabilities due to the change in the taxation regime.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, concluding that the petitioner was liable to pay GST under the terms of the contract and the applicable law. The contracts clearly stipulated that the contractor/bidder should bear all statutory levies, including those subsumed by the GST regime. The introduction of the GST Act did not alter the contractual obligations or impose a new liability on the petitioner.

---