Tax-inclusive tender terms bar later GST claims, and writ relief cannot resolve disputed billing facts without challenging the rejection communication.

A bidder who participated in a tender requiring tax-inclusive quotations could not later claim GST over and above the quoted amount after acceptance of the contract and execution of the work. The court held that the tender terms governed the transaction, and a later circular could not override the clear stipulation or justify a belated attempt to alter the bid conditions. It also held that a writ petition seeking a declaration of liability and payment of the GST component was not maintainable where the rejection communication was not directly challenged and the dispute depended on contested facts, which were unsuitable for determination under Article 226. The writ petition was therefore dismissed and no interference was made with the judgment under appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition seeking payment of the GST component and a declaration of liability was maintainable without challenging the communication rejecting the claim, and in the face of disputed questions of fact; (ii) whether the tender conditions permitted the petitioner to claim GST in addition to the quoted amount after participating in the bid and executing the work.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition seeking payment of the GST component and a declaration of liability was maintainable without challenging the communication rejecting the claim, and in the face of disputed questions of fact.

Analysis: The reliefs sought required adjudication of the rejection of the claim and the underlying factual controversy regarding the billing and payment structure. Since the communication declining the claim was not assailed, a general declaration of liability could not be sustained. The controversy also turned on disputed facts, which was not appropriate for determination in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The challenge was not maintainable in writ jurisdiction to the extent it sought adjudication of disputed facts and declaratory relief without directly assailing the rejection communication.

Issue (ii): whether the tender conditions permitted the petitioner to claim GST in addition to the quoted amount after participating in the bid and executing the work.

Analysis: The tender condition required quotations inclusive of tax, and the petitioner participated in the process without objecting to that stipulation. After acceptance of the contract and execution of the work, the petitioner could not seek to alter the effect of the tender terms or claim an additional amount under the GST head. The later reliance on the circular could not override the clear tender stipulation or cure the belated challenge. The principle against changing the rules of the game after the bidding process had commenced applied.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to claim GST over and above the amount quoted under the tender conditions.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the writ petition was affirmed, and no interference was warranted with the judgment under appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A bidder who accepts and acts under clear tender conditions requiring tax-inclusive quotation cannot later seek additional tax over and above the bid amount, and writ relief will not lie to resolve such disputed factual claims or to grant a declaration without assailing the rejection order.

---