2017 taxo.online 16
WP-13563-2017 dated 06.09.2017
NIRMAL CONSTRUCTIONS
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
2017
GST
Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017
Hemant Gupta, Justice & Vijay Kumar Shukla, Justice
In favour of revenue
Supreme Court
Delhi
Imposition of GST – GST on tender contracts/offers after 05.08.2017 – Petitioner challenged imposition leads to cancellation of tender – Respondent submitted that decision taken to account the change in tax and contractors will entitled for input tax on goods purchased – Not a concluded contract as letter of acceptance not communicated to petitioner therefore cannot seek grant of contract – Held: – No merit in the petition – Dismissed.
Represented by: –
Petitioner: – Alok Kumar, Advocate
Respondent: – Amit Seth, Government Advocate
Order: –
Challenge in the present petition is to a communication dated 18.8.2017, which has the effect of cancellation of the tender in which the petitioner participated. The communication is that Goods and Service Tax has been made applicable with effect from 1.7.2017, therefore, it is decided by the State Government on 5.8.2017 that for future contracts, offers should be invited by excluding the amount of G.S.T.
Such decision is on account of the change in tax environment and inasmuch as, the petitioner or other contractors will be entitled to benefit of input tax deposited by the sellers of the goods, which the petitioner purchases. Since the entire tax regime has undergone change, therefore, the State Government’s decision not to act upon the tenders invited with effect from 1.7.2017 to 5.8.2017 cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary, which may warrant interference of this Court.
It may be stated that in pursuance of the offer of the petitioner, letter of acceptance of the contract has not been communicated to the petitioner. Therefore, it is not High Court of Madhya Pradesh a case of concluded contract. In the absence of concluded contract, the petitioner cannot claim right to seek grant of contract only on the basis of the offer submitted by the petitioner at one stage.
Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same is dismissed.
