Page 62 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

148 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 37
petitions while ordering for refund of the tax amount and refusing to grant inter-
est on the said amount, the writ petitioners are in respective appeals.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellants contend that once the refund has
been ordered, the interest on the said amount requires to be followed. However,
the Learned Single Judge rejected the claim with regard to the interest on the re-
fund amount on the ground that no effective steps were taken by the petitioners
subsequent to the order passed by the assessing authority.
3. The same is disputed by the Learned Counsel for the respondents.
4. On considering the contentions of the Learned Counsels, we are of
the considered view that appropriate relief requires to be granted.
5. So far as the delay is concerned, the assessing authorities orders are
of the year 2006 and the respective writ petitions are filed in the year 2017. Even
if the petitions are not entertained on the ground of delay, on equity, the peti-
tions are to be considered as the matters pertain to demand of tax amount. Ad-
mittedly, the delay cannot come to the aid of the respondents. The respondents
have retained the money which belongs to the writ petitioners. Therefore, once
the Learned Single Judge has ordered for refund of the tax amount, necessarily,
interest should follow. The order of the Learned Single Judge is not challenged
by the respondents - authorities. It is only on the question of interest that these
appeals are filed.
6. Under the circumstances, it is only just and appropriate that the in-
terest be awarded on the refund amount as ordered by the Learned Single Judge
in both the appeals. Hence, appeals are disposed of accordingly. The respondents
are directed to pay the interest at the rate as applicable for the respective periods.

_______

2020 (37) G.S.T.L. 148 (Chhattisgarh)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT
BILASPUR

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, C.J. and Parth Prateem Sahu, J.
SHANTI ENGGICON PVT. LTD.
Versus
NTPC LTD.
Writ Petition (C) No. 194 of 2020, decided on 23-3-2020
Tender for road construction - Bidder forced to withdraw bid and for-
feit earnest money deposit on failure separately mention GST rate in tender -
GST rate originally notified came to be modified and segregated into two -
Obligatory on parts of respondents to have provided separate columns in ten-
der issued on 9-9-2019 - Clear stipulations in clause 12.4 of Instructions To
Bidders (ITB), read with Section 9 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
that payment of GST was to be liability of awarder - Mentioning or non-
mentioning of rate of GST to be of no consequence as it was a ‘constant figure’
with regard to which no alteration can be thought about either by bidder or by
awarder - In case of mistake or failure to quote proper amount with reference
GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  62