TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1609
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Letter No.F.Circular/ SDO IV/Com/2017 dated 13.11.2017 and the consequential impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in Lr.No.F.81171/Audit/SDO I/COM/2017 dated 19.12.2017 in so far as the work awarded to the petitioner namely providing improvements to water supply distribution in Tiruppur District by work order No.F.Tiruppur WSIS /SDO(T3)/CE/CBE/2017 dated 16.06.2017 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to make payment of the outstanding due payable to the petitioner as per the agreement/terms and conditions of bid document and in compliance of B.P.Ms.No.23 dated 31.03.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent within a time frame to be fixed by this court with interest @ 12% p.a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent 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 G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r into supplemental agreement as per the GO. It is these orders which are now under challenge in this writ petition. 5. The 2nd respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit for himself and on behalf the respondents 3 to 5 wherein it is inter alia contended that that work order was awarded to the petitioner before the implementation of the GST on 01.07.2017 and in and by board proceedings in BP Ms No.23 dated 31.03.2017 it has been resolved that during the execution of work, if GST is implement, difference between the GST paid and the sum of all the taxes subsumed under GST applicable at the time of bidding shall be absorbed by the board on production of payment receipt of GST towards the goods and services on the respective item exe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her contended that the above said GO has been issued as per the power conferred under Section 21 of The Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 ( Tamil Nadu Act 43 of 1998) which empowers to issue necessary Government Order for removing any difficulties in giving effect to the provisions of the said Act. So as to remove the difficulties in implementing the said Act arises due to the introduction of GST in all types of works contracts entered into by all departments under Tamil Nadu Government. Therefore, the GO is binding on the works contractors entering into contracts with the procuring entities of Government of Tamil Nadu. Insofar as G.O.Ms.No.296 dated 09.10.2016 is concerned, tax component already quoted by the contractor has been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e implementation of GST and the GO has to be necessarily followed. 8. Mr.R.L.Ramani, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would 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 impugne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... regimne. The petitioner had entered into a contract with the respondents Board before the GST regime came into force. Therefore, a specific clause has been inducted in the bid document under clause 48.1, as referred to supra. In the said circumstances, the GO impugned in this writ petition has been issued taking into consideration of the implementation of GST and directing the procuring entities to enter into supplemental agreements after negotiating with the existing works contractors, which in the considered opinion of this court would no way cause any prejudice to the petitioner. As the tax component already quoted by the respective contractors has been taken into consideration and the taxes subsumed under the GST has to be separated to....