TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 732
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....: ANIL S. KILOR, J) 1. Heard. 2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. In the present petition, the challenge is made to the communication dated 20/12/2022 issued by the respondent-Nagpur Metropolitan Region Development Authority denying the claim made by the petitioner of Goods and Service Tax (GST) reimbursement against Tender No. 1 dated 30/07/2014. The brief facts of the present case are as under: 4. The petitioner is a Proprietorship Firm engaged in Construction. The petitioner participated in the tender floated by respondent(s) on 02/06/2014 for construction of "Affordable housing on land bearing Khasra No. 54, Mouza Wathoda, City Survey No. 173, Shesh Nag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el for the petitioner. It is submitted that the Clauses of the tender namely Clauses 25 and 48 on which the reliance is placed for denial of claim of the petitioner, were part of the tender floated in the year 2014, whereas the GSTs came into effect from 01/07/2017. It is submitted that the taxes which were not there at the time of execution of Agreement or issuance of the tender, the petitioner is not liable to pay such taxes unless there is a specific condition in the tender document. It is argued that, the Government vide Government Circular dated 19/09/2017 and GR dated 21/01/2021, it has been clarified. It is argued that relying upon aforementioned Circular and GR, the reimbursement of GST was made in favour of many contractors like th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... completion of work, he waited for long period. He, therefore, submits that now, the petition cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold at the same time. 14. Shri Kunte, learned counsel for the respondents further draws our attention to the certain Clauses relating to payment, which prohibits the contractor from claiming any additional payment beyond the rates quoted. 15. He submits that it was made clear to the petitioner that all the future taxes are to be paid by the petitioner and since at the bottom of pre-bid meeting document, there is a note stating that the said document is part and parcel of the tender, the petitioner cannot claim reimbursement contrary to the clarification recorded in the pre-bid meeting. 16. He further dr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ithin 30 days of receipt of such claims. 20. Thereafter, the GR dated 21/01/2021 was issued, which stipulates execution of supplementary agreement for the ongoing work on 01/07/2017. Clause 2.3 of the GR dated 21/01/2021 reads thus, "2.3. The total tax burden thus calculated should be deducted from the contract price remaining as on 01/07/2017 and a supplementary agreement should be made for the remaining net contract price (Net Contract Price). The applicable Goods and Services Tax (GST) should be paid on the said net contract price." 21. It is imperative to note that after this clarification, reimbursement was made to many contractors like the petitioner and even in the case of the petitioner when such claim for GST reimbur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses 25 and 48 are taken into consideration, the impugned order is illegal and the respondents cannot deny the claim of the petitioner for GST reimbursement on the basis of above referred two Clauses. 28. Now, the question remains, whether in view of the pre-bid meeting and the clarification recorded in that meeting in respect of future taxes, the petitioner is liable to pay GST. 29. For this purpose, the judgment in the case of B. Rugmini Amma and anr. (supra) is helpful which says that effect of a clarification would not surpass the main order and cannot, by any means, supersede or override the terms of the main order. 30. Thus, it is evident that since the clarification as recorded in the pre-bid meeting in the present case is co....