M/S Manogna Enterprises vs. The State Of Telangana
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's claim that the tender conditions did not include the GST component was contrary to the tender conditions. Clause 11(d) of the tender document stipulated that the total monthly rates quoted shall be inclusive of profits, overheads, bonus, gratuity, etc., and taxes whatsoever payable. The Court found that this clause covered all applicable taxes, including indirect taxes like GST, even in relation to the manpower services for which the impugned tender was issued. Therefore, the Court concluded that no case was made out for granting any relief in the writ petition. The petition was dismissed.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Manogna Enterprises, challenged the action of the 3rd respondent, Nizamabad Municipal Corporation, in issuing short tenders for manpower supply services (drivers). The petitioner contended that the tenders (Tender ID 485777 and 485778) did not include the Goods and Services Tax (GST) component or obtain an advance ruling as required under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The tenders were for engaging 30 drivers each on an outsourcing basis for garbage lifting and shifting for the period January 1, 2024, to December 31, 2024. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to include GST or obtain an advance ruling.
Key Issues
1. Whether the tender documents issued by the 3rd respondent for manpower supply services failed to include the GST component, thereby violating Sections 97(2) and 100(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the tender documents did not explicitly include the GST component payable on the consideration for the supply of manpower services, which is a taxable activity under the GST Act. They sought a direction to include GST or obtain an advance ruling. Respondent's contention: The 3rd respondent contended that the tenderers were required to quote prices inclusive of all taxes. They argued that the petitioner's claim that the GST component was not included was incorrect.
Sections Cited
Section 97(2), Section 100(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
[ 3166 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO: 35027 OF 2023 Between: ]t//s IvIANOGNA ENTERPRISES, (A Partnership Firm), H.No.8-3-678/4 F, Mounten View Apartments, Navodaya Colony, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad - 500033, Telangana, Rep. by its Partner S. Mallikarjuna, S/o S. Nagendrappa, Aged about 35 years' ...pETrroNER AND 1. The State of Telangana, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary-
The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration (CDMA), State of Telangana, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500004. 3. Nizamabad Municipal Corporation, Nizamabad - 503001, Rep. by its commissioner' ...RESP.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent herein in issuin
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 Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.