ANI KAREEM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is a contractor, seeking direction to the 2nd respondent, i.e., the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation South Circle, Thiruvananthapuram to take over the payment of Goods & Service Tax (GST) by Government, and also to see that necessary weighing facilities are provided at the work-site so as to bring the rocks in bulk quantities, and alternatively seeking direction to the 2nd respondent to release the petitioner from the present tender without any risk and cost, if the GST cannot be taken over by the Government, and for other related and consequential reliefs. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) The 2nd respondent invited tenders for construction of Groyne field at Indian Rare Earth (IRE) mining area between chainage 34 km. to chainage 35 km. at Vellanathuruth in Alappad Panchayat, Kollam District. Petitioner quoted the lowest rate and the letter of acceptance of the tender is given to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent. However, in the said letter, it is specified that petitioner has to pay GST at the rate of 18%, which was not there in the tender notification. According to the petitioner, at the most petitioner was liable to pay tax at the rate of 4% under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT).

(3.) Further, it is stated that, the District Collector, Kollam stayed the operation of quarries in Kollam District, and therefore, rocks are not available in Kollam. Due to the said unforeseen circumstances, petitioner requested that GST may be paid by the Government and the weighing facilities may be provided at the work-site for weighing bulk quantities of rocks. It is also the case of the petitioner that, if the above conditions cannot be satisfied by the 2nd respondent, petitioner may be released from the tender without any risk and cost. It is also submitted that, to ventilate the grievances, petitioner has submitted Exts.P3 to P5 representations before the 2nd respondent, however, no action was initiated, and therefore, petitioner had no other alternative than to approach this Court by filing this writ petition. The sum and substance of the contention put forth by the petitioner is that, if the petitioner is unable to carry on with the contract, there is every likelihood of termination of the contract at the risk and cost of the petitioner.