CARO DISTRIBUTORS Vs. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri J. P. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri Y. Nadkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. The above Second Appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2010 passed by the Lower Appellate Court whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants challenging the refusal of interest by the learned Trial Judge, on the amount of VAT paid by the appellants came to be dismissed and the cross objection filed by the respondent challenging the decree of refusal of the said amount of VAT passed by the learned Trial Court came to be allowed.

(2.) SHRI Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment essentially on the ground that according to the learned Counsel, the amount of VAT payable with regard to the supply of goods was not inclusive. The learned Counsel further pointed out that though at the time of the advertisement, the terms stipulated therein provided that the price to be offered for the goods was inclusive of all taxes, while submitting the tender, the appellants have mentioned that the amount payable was exclusive of VAT. The learned Counsel further pointed out that as the tender of the appellants has been accepted, it implies that the counter offer made by the appellants was accepted by the respondent and as such, the question of refusing to pay the amount of VAT paid by the appellants would not arise. The learned Counsel further pointed out that as the counter offer made by the appellants has been accepted by the respondent, it amounts to conclusive contract and as such, the respondent is liable to pay the amount of VAT paid by the appellants. The learned Counsel in support of his submissions has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in, AIR 1981 SC 2084 in the case of Smt. Kavita V/s State of Maharashtra and Ors. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment passed by the Courts below and pointed out that the learned Trial Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has come to the conclusion that the amount offered by the appellants was exclusive of VAT and that the Lower Appellate Court has erroneously interfered with such findings of the learned Trial Judge. The learned Counsel as such submitted that there are substantial questions of law that arise in the present Second Appeal which require consideration.