2022 (9) TMI 1691

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ure Limited (hereinafter referred to as KSITIL). The e-tender was floated on 17.5.2017. The last date for submission of tender was on 4.7.2017. The goods and services tax regime came into force, on 1.7.2017. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was entitled to payment of goods and services tax (GST) over and above the amount for which the work was awarded. It is the case of the petitioner that the obligation of the 5th respondent to pay goods and services tax is clear from the tender documents, correspondence between the parties, minutes of Pre-Bid Meeting and general and special conditions of the tender forming part of Ext.P7 agreement executed between the petitioner and the 5th respondent. The claim of the petitioner fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to the notice inviting tender and the minutes of the Pre-Bid Meeting. The learned counsel points out that when the minutes of the Pre-Bid Meeting clearly indicated that tax on the service portion will be reimbursed, it meant that the petitioner was clearly entitled to the reimbursement of such tax. It is submitted that the introduction of GST from 1.7.2017 did not take away the right of the petitioner to claim the benefit of the service tax portion. It is submitted that GST is an indirect tax and the petitioner is entitled to collect such tax from the service recipient over and above the amount for which work was awarded (the taxable value of the service). It is submitted that going by Ext.P17 Circular issued by the Government of Kerala, th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the petitioner stated as follows:- "We have bided tender for above sited work, by mistake we have mentioned GST will be extra but now we withdraw our saying about GST and we accept the terms condition about taxes mentioned in tender and the clarification given in prebid meeting." It is submitted that the decisions relied on by the petitioner stand on a completely different footing and the fact situation there was completely different to the fact situation in this case. It is submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable, as disputed questions of fact are involved, and further that the terms of the agreement between the parties provide that all disputes shall be subject to jurisdiction of Courts at Thiruvananthapur....