Highway Construction Company Versus The Commissioner, Mcgm & 5 Ors.
GST
2018 (4) TMI 206 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – TMI
BOMBAY HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 14-3-2018
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 773 OF 2018
GST
A.S.OKA & RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
\nMr. A.G. Damle Sr. Counsel a\/w Mr Omkar V. Warange for the Petitioner.
\nMr. N.V. Walawalkar, Sr. Counsel a\/w Ms. Vandana Mahadik & Ms K.H.Mastakar for the Respondent\/BMC.
\nMr. M.M. Vashi, Sr. Counsel a\/w Ms. Aparna Devkar i\/b M\/s. M.P. Vashi & Associates for Respondent No.5.
\nHeard the learned senior counsel for the Petitioner, the learned senior counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the learned senior counsel for the Respondent No.5.
\n2. This Petition concerns e-tender dated 27th July, 2017, for construction of exhibits for Tiger and other animals as well as for Bird Aviary-2 in V.J.B. Udyan- Zoo Byculla (E Ward). The Petitioner as well as fifth and sixth respondents are the bidders. Clause 2 of the Special Note forming part of E-tender <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n tes quoted by the fifth respondent for both the parts was Rs. 58,18,69,632\/-. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n on 10th August, 2017. He placed on record the modified condition in a corrigendum which requires tenderers to quote the amount inclusive of all taxes including GST. He submitted that the Petitioner has signed the said corrigendum. He submitted that the Municipal Corporation has strictly gone by the amounts quoted by the Petitioner itself. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n t, is that the Petitioner has erroneously calculated GST at the rate of 18 %. The contention is that either the bid amount of the Petitioner be modified by taking the GST at the rate of 12 % or the bid amount of the fifth Respondent be modified by taking GST at the rate of 18 %. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Highway Construction Company Versus The Commissioner, Mcgm & 5 Ors.GST2018 (4) TMI 206 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – TMIBOMBAY HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 14-3-2018WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 773 OF 2018 GSTA.S.OKA & RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ. Mr. A.G. Damle Sr. Counsel a\/w Mr Omkar V. Warange for the Petitioner. Mr. N.V. Walawalkar, Sr. Counsel a\/w … Continue reading “Highway Construction Company Versus The Commissioner, Mcgm & 5 Ors.”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11299","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11299","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11299"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11299\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11299"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11299"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11299"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. The main contention in this Petition is that on the last date for submitting the bids, the rate of GST was 18 %, and therefore, the Petitioner offered his bid by taking into consideration the rate of GST as 18 %. The fifth respondent submitted his bid by taking into consideration the rate of GST at 12 %. That is how the total amount quoted by the said Respondent is on the lower side.
\n6. The contention of the Petitioner is that by taking GST 18 %, if the bid amounts are calculated, the Petitioner will be L-1. It is contended that, even if the GST is taken at 12 % in case of both the bids, the Petitioner will be L-1.
\n7. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner has taken us through the various annexures and the reply filed. It is submitted that even according to the case of the Municipal Corporation, the GST rate was 18 % at the time of submission of the tenders and at the time of opening of the tenders. <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n9. Learned senior counsel for fifth Respondent submitted that, by no stretch of imagination, the Petitioner can be L-1. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner submits that though the memorandum of Petition shows that the Petition was kept ready in February 2018, it is in fact a typing mistake and no significance can be attached to the same.
\n10. We have considered the submissions. It will be necessary to make a reference to the averments made in the Petition and in particular paragraph 10. From the documents tendered across the bar, it appears that general condition No.38 was modified by the corrigendum dated 10th August, 2017. The learned senior<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n12. Once the tender condition No.2 specifies in what manner the lowest bidder (L-1) will be determined, the Municipal Corporation was under an obligation to determine the lowest bidder only in the manner provided in the tender notice and not in any other manner. Modified condition No.38 specifically provides that the tenderer shall quote inclusive of all taxes including GST. Admittedly the quote by the Petitioner inclusive of GST was higher than the quote of the fifth Respondent.
\n13. If the submissions made across the bar by the Petitioner are accepted, this Court will have to apply criteria for selecting the lowest bidder which is different from the criteria provided in the tender document\/notice. This Court<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n