Kerala High Court
C.P.Sangeeth vs The Registrar on 3 June, 2025
WA NO.503/2023 1
2025:KER:38556
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WA NO. 503 OF 2023
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.02.2023 IN WP(C)
NO.23856 OF 2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE WP(C):
C.P.SANGEETH
AGED 47 YEARS
PROPRIETOR, POWERLINE CONSULTANTS, IDA 1/248,
MES SOUTH VAZHAKULAM, PIN - 683112
BY ADVS.
R.MURALEEDHARAN
K.P.JOSE PIOUS
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WP(C):
1 THE REGISTRAR
SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT,
KALADY, KALADY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 683574
2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR
SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT,
KALADY, KALADY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 683574
BY ADV SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN, SC, R1 & R2
NAYANA VARGHESE
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.05.2025,
THE COURT ON 03.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO.503/2023 2
2025:KER:38556
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2025
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated
01.02.2023 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 23856 of
2022. Appellant was the petitioner in the W.P.(C) and respondents
were the respondents therein. Parties are hereinafter referred to as
per their status in the W.P.(C).
2. The W.P.(C) was filed by the petitioner inter alia seeking a
direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to pay the balance
outstanding in the bills submitted by the petitioner and to declare
that, the respondent University is liable to pay the applicable goods
and service tax for the Goods and Services availed by them as per
the invoices issued by the petitioner.
3. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the W.P.(C), inter
alia, holding that after participating in a tender process, the
petitioner-bidder cannot turn around and challenge the conditions in
the bid documents. It was also held that in view of the factual
2025:KER:38556
disputes involved in the matter, no Writ Petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution would lie. Aggrieved by the dismissal of this W.P.
(C), the petitioner has preferred this appeal.
4. The brief facts leading to the dispute are as follows: The
petitioner had, in response to the tender floated, undertaken the
supply and erection of generator sets for the respondent university
and had raised bills in the said respect. Though the respondent
university had paid the amounts as per the invoices submitted by
the petitioner, the said payments were made excluding the GST
payable. After repeated requests, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P13
reply declining the request of the petitioner for payment of GST,
inter alia, stating that the university does not pay any GST in similar
contracts. It was also stated therein that the University does not
deem the relevant works by the petitioner as purchases making
them liable to meet the demand of the petitioner. Since the petitioner
is a registered dealer under the GST Act, he is liable to collect and
pay GST at the rate of 18% on the supply of goods and services.
Contending that the stand taken by the 1st respondent university is
contrary to law, the Writ Petition was filed seeking reliefs as
2025:KER:38556
aforesaid.
5. Heard Sri.R.Muraleedharan, Advocate for the appellant
(petitioner) and Sri.Dinesh Mathew J. Muricken, Advocate, learned
Standing Counsel for the respondents.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the Writ Petition without
properly appreciating the contentions put forth by the petitioner and
overlooking relevant legal mandates. Placing reliance on Annexure
A circular dated 14.12.2017, which admittedly had not been
produced before the learned Single Judge, it is contended by the
learned counsel that the said circular stipulates that all estimates for
goods, services and works which any Government Department or
agency prepares should be exclusive of GST and that to issue
administrative sanction, the total amount for approval should
indicate separately, the estimate and applicable GST. Relying on the
circular, it is further contended that when the bills for any goods,
services or works procured by any Government Department or
agency are processed, the payment has to be made to the
contractor for the total value of the work plus the applicable GST. It
2025:KER:38556
is argued by the learned counsel that the learned Single Judge,
while dismissing the Writ Petition, had not considered the
implications of the stipulations in the said circular and hence erred in
dismissing the W.P.(C). The learned counsel further contends that
Ext.P3 tender document was a template wherein the petitioner was
not permitted to make any changes or corrections, and he was
allowed only to enter the bid names and values. The finding of the
learned Single Judge that the petitioner ought to have cleared the
doubts concerning the inclusion of GST before participating in the
bid is erroneous. Petitioner had proceeded on the impression that
the estimated cost was shown without taxes and the quote would
also be exclusive of taxes. The learned counsel contended that
Ext.R1 (c) agreement entered into by the petitioner with the 1 st
respondent does not contain any condition about the payment of
GST by the contractor himself, and that the bid amount agreed
should be inclusive of GST. It is also contended that the requirement
in Ext.R1(b) General Conditions of Tender that the bid amount
should be inclusive of applicable sales tax has not been followed by
the respondents in all cases, and that the respondents have paid
2025:KER:38556
over the applicable GST payable on bills submitted by the petitioner
earlier. The learned counsel for the petitioner thus contends that the
judgment of the learned Single Judge is erroneous and fit to be set
aside.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents contended that the judgment of the learned Single
Judge does not call for any interference and the same has been
rendered in accordance with law. It is submitted that the petitioner
had placed his bid for the work covered by the relevant notification,
fully knowing that, as per the tender condition, he had to quote and
bid including all taxes. There was no scope or reason for any doubt
or lack of clarity in the said respect. The same had been specifically
stated as Clause 11(f) of the General Conditions of Tender. The
petitioner had not challenged the condition in the tender document,
which required him to quote the amount, including all taxes. The
petitioner, after awarding the contract and completing the work, had
raised the demand that GST amount had to be paid in addition to
the amount quoted by him. Since the petitioner was fully aware that
the bidder should quote the amount including all taxes, after
2025:KER:38556
participating in the bid along with other bidders, the petitioner cannot
turn around and contend that his bid did not include GST. If the
petitioner had raised the objection now seen raised, at the time of
submitting his quote, the 1st respondent University could have
clarified the same and other bidders also would have been required
to quote the bid amount without including GST. Consequently their
amounts would have been lower than the petitioner's quote. Hence,
the petitioner cannot now claim an additional amount towards the
GST component. The petitioner cannot rely on the circular produced
as Annexure A, given the clear and precise conditions of tender
document. The learned counsel contended that the impugned
judgment had been rendered after correctly taking note of the
contentions put forth by the parties and that the dismissal of the Writ
Petition is valid and proper. He submits that the same does not call
for any interference and that the Writ Appeal is only to be dismissed.
8. We have heard both sides in detail. At the very outset, we
note that the petitioner had not challenged Ext.P13 issued by the 1 st
respondent, wherein the request put forth by him had been declined.
The reasons for declining the prayer of the petitioner concerning the
2025:KER:38556
additional payment of the GST component are contained in Ext.P13
issued by the 1st respondent. Without challenging Ext.P13, the
petitioner cannot maintain a general prayer for a declaration as seen
made in the Writ petition. The 1st prayer sought in the W.P.(C) is for
a direction to the respondents to pay the balance of the purported
outstanding payments under the bills submitted by the petitioner.
The same is followed by the declaratory relief seeking a declaration
that the respondents are liable to pay GST for all goods and
services availed. The legal sustainability of the prayers sought in the
Writ Petition is, by itself, doubtful as the document declining the
claim has not been assailed in the Writ Petition. Further, the very
nature of the prayer sought to make it necessary to appreciate
disputed questions of fact, which is per se beyond the scope of a
petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The latter aspect
had engaged the attention of the learned Single Judge too and the
same has been stated as a reason for dismissal of the W.P.(C).
9. We note that the learned Single Judge, had relying on
clause 11 (f) of the General Conditions of Tender, which specifically
stipulated that all rates quoted should be inclusive of sales tax,
2025:KER:38556
concluded that after the introduction of the GST regime, the term
'sales tax' had to be understood as Goods and Service Tax and
thus, the tender document is to be deemed as having provided for
inclusion of GST. The learned Judge had noted that the payment
towards the second and final part had been accepted by the
petitioner without the GST. It was also rightly concluded by the
learned Single Judge that any doubt regarding the inclusion of GST
or otherwise ought to have been cleared by the petitioner before
participating in the bid and instead of doing so, the petitioner had
participated in the tender and had thereafter chosen to challenge
the terms of the tender document after securing the contract and
executing the work. The learned Judge, holding that after
participating in a tender process, the bidder cannot turn around and
challenge the conditions in the bid document, has dismissed the
W.P.(C). It is trite and settled law, as held in Monarch
Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal
Corporation and others [(2000) 5 SCC 287], that a term of the
tender being varied after the players entered the arena is akin to
changing the rules of the game after it had begun. The prayer put
2025:KER:38556
forth by the petitioner which is akin to varying the tender clauses
cannot be sustained. The learned Single Judge was correct in
turning down the said prayer. As regards the contentions made
based on Annexure A circular produced along with the appeal, we
find merit in the contention of the respondent that given the clear
and precise conditions of tender document, which was never
objected to or sought to be varied at the appropriate time, there is
no scope for the reliance placed on the circular, that too belatedly.
In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the
judgment of the learned Single Judge. This Writ Appeal is
dismissed. No cost.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl
2025:KER:38556
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR
NO.90/2017/FIN DATED 14.12.2017 ISSUED
BY FINANCE (INDUSTRIES & PUBLIC
WORKS.B) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA
