JAIN BUILDERS Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER (NW),

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As both these writ petitions involve a common issue, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the reference to facts and exhibits is from W.P.(C)No.22728/2019.

(2.) The petitioner is stated to be a partnership firm engaged in the business of construction and an enlisted 'S CLASS' contractor of the respondent Military Engineer Services. It is the case of the petitioner that it was awarded two contracts by the 2nd respondent as evidenced by Exts.P9 and P10. As per the general conditions of the contract, a reimbursement/refund on variation in taxes directly related to contract value was envisaged. The relevant clause reads as follows:

(3.) The case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that, while it raised bills on the respondents for the work done in terms of the contract, and the respondents were effecting payments of the amounts covered by the said bills, the respondent, by Ext.P15 communication, intimated the petitioner that due to the downward revision of GST rates from 18% to 12%, the differential 6% on the contractually agreed amount, towards GST, would be deducted from the next running account/final bill. It is the case of the petitioner that the terms of the contract entered into between the petitioner and the respondents do not admit of any unilateral action being taken by the respondents towards deducting amounts from the bill amounts payable to the petitioner during the subsistence of the contract, and that any dispute raised by the respondents, with regard to payments to be made to the petitioner must necessarily await the completion of the work under the contract as contemplated in the arbitration clause referred above.