Sri Durga Bhavani Enterprises vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application (I.A.No.1 of 2024) seeking a review of an order passed by the High Court on April 15, 2024, in W.P.No.14632 of 2022. The petitioner contended that the tender issued by the respondent authorities was illegal and arbitrary because it provided for reimbursement of ESI and EPF but not GST. The petitioner argued that the Court had passed the original order without considering this fact. The respondents were represented by learned Standing Counsel. The Court noted that review proceedings are not equivalent to an original hearing and cited Supreme Court decisions on the scope of review, emphasizing that it is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to re-argue decided issues.

Held

The Court held that the Interlocutory Application seeking review of the order dated April 15, 2024, in W.P.No.14632 of 2022, is dismissed. The Court reasoned that the order under review did not suffer from any infirmity or error apparent on the face of the record, as per the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in cases like Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officer. The Court noted that a review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be used to reagitate or reargue issues already addressed. The Court found that the petitioner's contention regarding the non-inclusion of GST reimbursement in the tender did not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. The Court further clarified that the liability to pay GST is on the service fee received, not on salary paid to employees, and that the mere omission of separate mention of GST in a tender does not automatically render it invalid. It is for the tender issuing authority to specify whether the quoted price is inclusive or exclusive of certain levies. Therefore, the application for review was found to be without merit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court's order dated April 15, 2024, passed in W.P.No.14632 of 2022 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting review, based on the petitioner's contention that the tender did not provide for GST reimbursement? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the tender issued by the respondent authorities was illegal and arbitrary because it only provided for reimbursement of ESI and EPF, and crucially, did not provide for reimbursement of GST. The petitioner asserted that the Court's original order was passed without taking note of this significant omission, leading to a potential financial loss for tenderers. The petitioner sought review on this ground, implying that the original order failed to address this material aspect of the tender document. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the revenue or state in response to the review application. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the revenue/state's position, as understood by the Court, was that the liability to pay GST is on the service fee received, not on amounts paid as salary, and that the mere non-mention of GST separately in the tender does not invalidate it.