Latest GST Judgments

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on GST
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our GST Library

Few changes in terms of tender agreement after the finalisation and negotiations cannot be a reason to presume favouritism

Section 10 of the CGST Act —Composition Levy – The Petitioners sought to quash agreement by which the 2nd respondent has awarded a works contract to the 5th respondent. The 2nd respondent- Secretary to Kavannur Grama Panchayat invited e-tenders for installation of 24W LED street lighting system. The petitioner submitted that there were only two tender participants. The bid results were not published. The 5th respondent had quoted price which is higher than the quote submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner being the lowest tenderer, the work should have been allocated to him. The other respondents submitted that in the petitioner’s document certain columns were left unfilled and he failed to quote GST percentage and tax amount. The petitioner's quote was without GST component. Had the petitioner included tax component, then his rate would definitely be higher. The petitioner aruged that he has not disclosed tax burden since he paid Composition levy under Section 10. The Court observed that the payment of self-assessed tax for the quarter January–March 2019-20, has been filed. But, it was filed only on 16.07.2020, which is much after filing of the writ petition. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was composite dealer as on the date of filing of the tender application.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court held that the writ petition lacks merit and consequently dismissed.—Fawas Ashraf Vs. Kavannur Grama Panchayath, Secretary Kavannur Grama Panchayath, State of Kerala, Director of Panchayath, Green Leaf Technology [2020] 27 TAXLOK.COM 066 (Kerala)