Binod Daimari vs. The State Of Assam And 3 Ors

Held

The Court noted a broad consensus between the parties that the writ petition could be disposed of at the admission stage. The Court took into consideration the minutes of the meeting held on August 25, 2022, which addressed the petitioner's grievances. The minutes proposed calculating the GST minus VAT amount for payment from July 2017 and incorporating it into the revised estimate. The Court directed the respondent authorities, particularly respondent no. 3, to act on the decisions taken in the minutes. Regarding the petitioner's prayer for a revised estimate due to price escalation, the Court directed that this aspect could be considered if the petitioner submitted a representation within 21 days, detailing the reasons for revision. This representation was to be considered and disposed of by a speaking order. The Court expected the entire exercise to be completed expeditiously, preferably within two months of receiving the representation. The issue of price escalation was not definitively decided but was left open for the petitioner to pursue through a representation.

Facts

The petitioner, Binod Daimari, a registered Class 1(A) Contractor with the Irrigation Department, Government of Assam, was awarded a work order on August 22, 2014, for the construction of a Gated Spillway. The initial tender was floated on December 23, 2013. Subsequently, the estimates were revised due to design modifications, leading to a supplementary tender where the petitioner was again the L1 bidder. The value of the work was enhanced to Rs. 11,03,44,596/-. The petitioner's grievance is the non-release of bills for the work completed, which he claims was 65% at the time of filing the petition and fully completed during its pendency. The work order and initial estimates were issued before the introduction of GST, which replaced VAT.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to payment for the work completed, considering the change in tax regime from VAT to GST, and the revised estimates? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to price escalation for the work awarded in 2013, given the increase in market prices and the delay in payment? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the original estimate and work order were issued prior to GST, under the VAT regime (5%). With the introduction of GST, the rate increased to 18%. Although the department revised the estimate considering GST and increased market prices, the petitioner's bills have not been released. He also sought a revised estimate due to price escalation since the work was awarded in 2013. Revenue's arguments: The Irrigation Department submitted an affidavit-in-opposition dated November 19, 2022, along with minutes of a meeting held on August 25, 2022. The minutes indicated that the department was considering the payment of 75% of the work done and calculating the GST minus VAT amount for payment from July 2017. However, the minutes also noted that there was no provision for price escalation in the tender agreement, but the petitioner was at liberty to approach the court for such claims.