Page 130 - GSTL_16 April 2020_Vol 35_Part 3

344 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
quired to file with the office of the State Authority for Advance Ruling as the
back-end interface for the officers of the Advance Ruling Authority is not opera-
tional yet. In this case, the applicant filed the application on 18-9-2019 with the
office of the respective State Authority for Advance Ruling.
7.3 The jurisdictional State officer has informed in a written submission
that the applicant had already filed a Writ Petition No. 24412, dated 19-8-2019
before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, wherein the Tamil Nadu Medical Ser-
vice Corporation (TNMSC), Director of Medical Education (DME), Assistant
Commissioner GST and M/s. Krystal Integrated Services Ltd. are the respond-
ents. This writ petition is filed praying an order of Interim Injunction restraining
TNMSC from initiating or taking any steps in finalizing the tender pending dis-
posal of the main application.
7.4 We find that the applicant contends that the issue pending before
the Hon’ble High Court is the incorrect tender process and procedure adopted
by TNMSC and the said Writ Petition filed by them has never asked for clarifica-
tion of the applicability of GST on the services provided by them, but has only
asked the Hon’ble High Court for interim injunction to stop the Entire tender
process since the TNMSC has violated the procedure which has to be adopted by
TNMSC in contrary to the Tamilnadu Tender Transparency Rules, 2000 read
with Tender Transparency Act. It is seen from the Writ Petition filed by the ap-
plicant that :
 Para 1 states that Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation has
floated a tender for outsourcing of housekeeping and security ser-
vices in which the applicant has participated.
 Para 4 & 5 States that KRYSTAL, a bidder to the said tender has
submitted their bid by stating GST as “Zero” and emerged as the
successful bidder in respect of Zone 1 to Zone 4 and that the appli-
cant would have been the successful bidder after including GST and
that KRSTAL had taken a calculated risk in submitting their bid
without GST and subsequently cannot amend their bid which is
contrary to Transparency in Tenders Act, 1988. Non-inclusion of
GST indicated that the level playing field was not adopted.
 Para 6 states that Form F of the tender document reveals that when
the bid is submitted, the applicable taxes would also have to be in-
cluded while submitting the bids and in the instant case GST would
be applicable on the services in the tender.
 Para 7 states that TNMSC responded to their representation with
letter dated 14-8-2019 stating that as GST is not applicable in the
tender, the bid of KRYSTAL was the lowest.
 Para 8 states that the applicant vide their letter [dated] 16-8-2019 it
was not fair on the part of TNMSC to consider the bid of KRYSTAL
without GST and the issue of applicability of GST was to be consid-
ered.
 Para 10 states that the applicant was asked by TNMSC vide their
letter dated 17-8-2019 to negotiate on the applicants lowest bid for
Zone 5 considering the applicability of GST.
 Para 12 states that GST is very much applicable to the case and
hence, the bid of KRYSTAL is illegal and should have been disquali-
fied. For efficacious adjudication of the writ they implead Assistant
GST LAW TIMES  16th April 2020  250