B. Sundaram vs. State Of Kerala
Held
The High Court held that the petitioner was bound by his original bid of 9% GST and a previous judgment which clarified that tenderers cannot claim higher taxes if incorrectly quoted. The delay in issuing the work order was due to the third-party litigation, not the respondent's fault. Therefore, the blacklisting and EMD forfeiture for refusing the work and attempting to claim excess GST were justified and not arbitrary.
Facts
The petitioner, an L1 bidder for a tender floated by Kerala Mineral and Metals Limited (KMML), quoted 9% GST but later sought to claim 18% GST, citing the expiry of the tender's validity period. Following the dismissal of a third-party writ petition challenging the award, KMML issued a work order which the petitioner refused. Consequently, KMML blacklisted the petitioner for six months and forfeited his Earnest Money Deposit (EMD).
Key Issues
The key legal issues were whether the petitioner was justified in refusing the work order due to the tender's expired validity and the dispute over the applicable GST rate, and if KMML's subsequent blacklisting and EMD forfeiture were arbitrary or illegal.
Sections Cited
None mentioned
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 23212 OF 2021 PETITIONER: B. SUNDARAM AGED 55 YEARS S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, CHAITHANYA, VALLOM, KOTTARAKKARA P. O., KOLLAM - 691 506. BY ADV V.A.VINOD RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2 KERALA MINERAL AND METALS LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM - 691 583. 3 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA MINERAL AND METALS LIMITED, SANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM - 691 583. BY ADV. LATHA ANAND, SC SMT.VINITHA B., SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.23212/2021 : 2 : J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 9th day of November, 2021 The petitioner, who is a PWD Contractor, is before this Court seeking to quash Ext.P9 and to declare that the petitioner is eligible to participate in the ongoing and upcoming tenders issued by the 2nd respondent.
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.