M/S. Binayak Enterprisers vs. State Of Odisha
Held
The Court observed that the original agreement was for the year 2018-19, and the petitioner was subsequently allowed to operate for 2019-20 and until 21.08.2020. Regarding the petitioner's prayer to extend the arrangement made under the letter dated 04.11.2019, the Court held that it could not issue any such direction. However, the Court noted that it would be open for the petitioner to approach the concerned opposite party-authority with such a request. The Court did not make any specific findings or directions regarding the refund of GST or sales tax dues, as the primary focus was on the continuation of the contractual arrangement.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Binayak Enterprisers, filed a writ petition challenging a Tender Call Notice dated 06.10.2020 issued by MSTC Ltd. for lifting waste paper and swept-off materials for recycling for the year 2020-21. The petitioner had previously been the successful bidder under Tender Notice No.7/2018-19, with an agreement executed on 22.10.2018. This contract was extended for the year 2019-20 until the finalization of the next tender, as per a letter dated 04.11.2019. However, the arrangement was discontinued from 21.08.2020. The petitioner sought to continue operating under the extended arrangement and requested the return of 4% GST deposited since 29.10.2018, along with outstanding sales tax dues.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court can direct the opposite party to allow the petitioner to continue operating under the arrangement made via the letter dated 04.11.2019 until the new tender process is finalized, as per the petitioner's prayer. 2. Whether the opposite party should be directed to return the 4% GST deposited by the petitioner since 29.10.2018, along with outstanding sales tax dues. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned tender call notice had been cancelled. They contended that their previous contract for 2018-19 was extended for 2019-20 via a letter dated 04.11.2019, and this arrangement should continue until a new tender is finalized. They also sought the refund of GST paid and outstanding sales tax. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the opposite parties (revenue or state).
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner by Video Conferencing mode.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-M/s. Binayak Enterprisers represented through its proprietor, Tapas Pattnaik challenging the Tender Call Notice 06.10.2020 (Annexure-1) by which the opposite party no.4-MSTC Ltd invited tenders for lifting of waste paper and swept off materials together for recycling for the year 2020-21. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned tender call notice has been cancelled by the opposite parties. It is submitted that prior to the impugned tender call notice, the petitioner was the successful bidder pursuant to earlier Tender Notice No.7/2018-19 and the agreement was executed between the parties on 22.10.2018 for lifting of waste paper and swept off materials together for recycling for the year 2018-19. He also submits that pursuant to the amendment of the earlier tender notice,
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 Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.