M/S Pir Panchal Construction PVT LTD vs. Hpseb LTD

Held

The Court held that both parties had arrived at an amicable settlement in the 408th meeting of the WTD Level Store Purchase Committee on December 19, 2017. The settlement included the approval of the Court Commissioner's report on the additional impact of GST at 18% for five projects under the DDUGJY Scheme. The settlement also stipulated that any reduction in GST rates would be passed on to HPSEBL, and the petitioner would recalculate prices based on the GST impact for approval. Since both parties had no objection to the petition being allowed in terms of this settlement, the writ petition was allowed and disposed of accordingly. The interim order dated November 10, 2017, was vacated, and pending applications were also disposed of. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original dispute but gave effect to the mutually agreed settlement.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Pir Panchal Construction Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an action or order by the respondents, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and Ors. The dispute appears to concern the impact of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on a contract. The parties have reached an amicable settlement in the 408th meeting of the WTD Level Store Purchase Committee held on December 19, 2017. This settlement involved the Store Purchase Committee of HPSEBL approving in principle a report from a Court Commissioner regarding the additional impact of GST at 18%. The settlement also addressed the additional impact for five projects under the DDUGJY Scheme, specifying percentages of the total bid value for supply and erection parts, and stipulated that any reduction in GST rates would benefit HPSEBL. The petitioner was to recalculate prices based on the GST impact and resubmit them for approval.

Key Issues

1. Whether the parties have reached a valid and binding settlement regarding the impact of GST on the contract, and if so, should the writ petition be disposed of in terms of this settlement? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning contract law and procedural fairness). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner agreed to the settlement terms and had no objection to the petition being allowed in terms of the decision reached in the WTD Level Store Purchase Committee meeting. Respondents' contention: The respondents also had no objection to the petition being allowed in terms of the settlement. The respondents, through their committee, had approved the report on the GST impact and the subsequent recalculation of prices by the petitioner.