TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Respondent must consider petitioner's GST and royalty claim under SBD Clause 35 if complete Annexure R/B filed within two months</h1> HC held that the respondent corporation must consider the petitioner's GST/royalty claim under SBD Clause 35 if the petitioner submits a complete claim ... Obligation to pay/reimburse the GST claim amount as per the Standard Bidding Document (SBD) Clause 35 - Corporation's withholding of royalty payment from the petitioner's work done bill is justified or not - HELD THAT:- The Respondent Corporation is ready to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with SBD Clause ‘35’, subject to the condition that the petitioner submits a complete claim and fulfills the requirement by furnishing the information which have been sought for by the Superintending Engineer of the Corporation in Annexure ‘R/B’. Liberty granted to the petitioner to submit a complete claim with all such information which have been sought for in Annexure ‘R/B’ within a period of two months from today - On receipt of the complete claim with the requirements in terms of Annexure ‘R/B’, the competent authority of the Corporation shall consider the same in accordance with law and keeping in view SBD Clause ‘35’. It is made clear that the prima-facie opinion expressed in paragraph ‘4’ of the Letter (Annexure ‘R/B’) shall not come in the way of a fair consideration of the claim in accordance with law. Application disposed off. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED:- Whether the Respondent Corporation is obligated to pay/reimburse the GST claim amount as per the Standard Bidding Document (SBD) Clause 35.- Whether the Corporation's withholding of royalty payment from the petitioner's work done bill is justified.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS:Issue 1: Reimbursement of GST Claim- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The petitioner sought reimbursement of the GST claim amount based on SBD Clause 35, which deals with the reimbursement of levy/taxes if levied after receipt of tenders.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted the petitioner's participation in the tender, successful completion of the work, and submission of GST claim and M.N form. The Court also considered a previous judgment where similar issues were resolved after meetings between petitioners and state authorities.- Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's submission of the GST claim, the Corporation's communication regarding incomplete claim, and the Superintending Engineer's opinion were key pieces of evidence.- Application of law to facts: The Court emphasized that the Corporation should consider the petitioner's claim in accordance with SBD Clause 35, subject to the petitioner submitting a complete claim as per the requirements outlined by the Corporation.- Conclusions: The Court granted the petitioner two months to submit a complete claim and directed the Corporation to consider the claim within two months of receipt. The Court clarified that the Superintending Engineer's opinion should not hinder a fair consideration of the claim.Issue 2: Withholding of Royalty Payment- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The petitioner alleged that the Corporation withheld royalty payment from the work done bill, which was deducted from the petitioner's company.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court considered the Corporation's contention that the petitioner had submitted an incomplete claim and had not complied with the requirements outlined in the communication from the Corporation.- Key evidence and findings: The communication from the Corporation regarding the incomplete claim and the petitioner's alleged non-compliance were key evidence in this issue.- Application of law to facts: The Court directed the petitioner to fulfill the requirements outlined by the Corporation for the royalty payment and stated that a fair consideration would be given once the petitioner complies.- Conclusions: The Court did not express any opinion on the interpretation of SBD Clause 35 at this stage and disposed of the writ application accordingly, granting the petitioner the opportunity to raise grievances if needed.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS:- The Court ordered the Corporation to consider the petitioner's GST claim in accordance with SBD Clause 35 upon submission of a complete claim within two months.- The Court directed the Corporation to pass a speaking order on the claim within two months of receiving the complete claim and to pay the admitted claim within one month thereafter.- The Court granted the petitioner the liberty to raise grievances if dissatisfied with the Corporation's decision on payment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
