Kerala High Court
Pmr Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 6 February, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 32217 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
PMR ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.
PMR BUILDING, 4/33, MELMURI.P.O.,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676517
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
BY ADVS.
P.SHANES METHAR
N.KRISHNA PRASAD
BHARATH MOHAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES AND
IRRIGATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 CHIEF ENGINEER (IRRIGATION AND
ADMINISTRATION), O/O CHIEF ENGINEER
(IRRIGATION AND ADMINISTRATION),
PUBLIC OFFICE COMPLEX, UNIVERSITY
OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
O/O.IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT,
IRRIGATION NORTH CIRCLE, CAUVERI HOUSE,
WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673005
BY ADV.
SRI. SUJITH MATHEW JOSE, SPL. GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No. 32217 of 2023
:2:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that, with respect to a contract for work
- which they have entered into with the Irrigation Department -
the eligible GST is being refused to be disbursed to them; though it
is mandatory to have been so done, as per the contract terms, as
well as the Government orders covering the field.
2. Sri.P.Shanes Methar - learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that his client furnished their bid for the work in
question - based on which the contract was entered into with them
by the respondents - quoting their rates excluding the GST as
mandated by the Bill of Quantities (BoQ template), as also Ext.P2
Circular; and hence that the refusal of the respondents to
reimburse the GST is illegal and unlawful. He argued that, when
the contract as also the 'BoQ' template, and Ext.P2 Circular, make
it incumbent upon the respondents to honour and disburse GST to
his client, their refusal is unlawful and unconstitutional. He thus
prayed that the reliefs sought for in this writ petition be granted.
3. Pertinently, in answer to the afore submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special Government
Pleader - Sri.Sujith Mathew Jose, relied upon a counter affidavit
filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, wherein, it is averred that the
quoted amount as per 'BoQ' is inclusive of all taxes. He, therefore,
prayed that this writ petition be dismissed as being premature. He,
however, added that since he is making the submissions only on
instructions, it may be left to the 1 st respondent to take a final
decision on the petitioner's claim, depending upon all the germane
terms of the contract, as also the applicable Circulars and the
instructions that govern the field.
4. I have no doubt that the afore suggestion of the learned
Government Pleader is the best available in the given
circumstances because, the disputation between the parties -
whether the bid of the petitioner was inclusive of GST or otherwise
- is not one that this Court can decide at the first instance, for lack
of jurisdiction to deal with such matters, while acting under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
5. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the 1 st respondent
must take up the petitioner's claim and decide upon it, after
hearing them, without any avoidable delay.
Resultantly, I allow this writ petition and direct the competent
Authority of the 1st respondent to immediately hear the petitioner
and take a decision on their claim for reimbursement of GST; thus
culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon,
as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
If, after the afore exercise, the petitioner is found eligible for
being reimbursed the GST, then action for honouring the same
shall be completed, leading to its disbursement, as expeditiously as
is possible, but not later than two months thereafter.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
anm
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32217/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
TENDER -E-TENDER NO.SEIK/ET-PQ-01/2018-
19/SN DATED 5.12.2018
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.
90/2017/FIN. DATED 14.12.2017 ISSUED BY
THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (INDUSTRIES &
PUBLIC WORKS-B), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THECIRCULAR NO. 18/2019/FIN.
DATED 01.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT
OF FINANCE (INDUSTRIES & PUBLIC WORKS-B),
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
AGREEMENT NO.SE (I) 03/2019-20 DATED
24.05.2019 FOR THE WORKS BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER AND THIRD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TTRUE COPY OF THE FIRST SUPPLEMENTARY
AGREEMENT (DATED 19.03.2021) FOR
EXTENSION TIME OF COMPLETION TO THE
ORIGINAL AGREEMENT NO.SE (I) 03/2019-20
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND SUPPLEMENTARY
AGREEMENT (DATED 30.06.2021) TO THE
ORIGINAL AGREEMENT NO.SE (I) 03/2019-20
FOR ADDITIONAL QUANTITIES EXCEEDING 25%
TO THE ORIGINAL QUANTITY AND EXTRA ITEMS
OF WORK
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE THIRD SUPPLEMENTARY
AGREEMENT (DATED 13.08.2021) FOR
EXTENSION TIME OF COMPLETION TO THE
ORIGINAL AGREEMENT NO.SE (I) 03/2019-20
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST SUPPLEMENTARY
AGREEMENT (DATED 02.08.2022) FOR
EXTENSION TIME OF COMPLETION TO THE
ORIGINAL AGREEMENT NO.SE (I) 03/2019-20
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.W5/19370/18/TS/RE DATED
24.6.2021(TOGETHER WITH ATTACHMENT AND
TYPED COPY)
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
BID DOCUMENT
Exhibit R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.12.2022
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
