Page 66 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

152 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 37
11. We heard Shri Vikram Sharma, the Learned Counsel for the Peti-
tioner and Shri B.D. Guru, the Learned Counsel representing the Respondent-
Company.
12. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner points out with reference to
Annexure P/6, which is the screen shot of the bid submitted by the petitioner
online, clearly showing the estimated price of Rs. 24,32,45,371.37 in column No.
6, the entry given by the petitioner as he was quoting less i.e. minus in column
No. 9 and the quote offered in column No. 13 as 24.99% of the estimated cost,
which is without GST. Column No. 18 (as to the rate of GST) was left blank,
which fact is admitted in Annexure P/5 letter as well. Column No. 54 shows the
amount quoted by the Petitioner as Rs. 18,24,58,353.06, though the heading in the
said column as given by the respondents in the web portal is described as an
amount with premium/discount and GST. Even according to the respondents
and as notified in the tender conditions, the quote was never to include GST and
the rate of GST was to be separately given under column No. 18. This being the
position, it was never open for the respondents to have reduced the GST from
the quote of Rs. 18,24,58,353.06, to work out the bid amount of the petitioner and
by virtue of the specific clauses under 23.3 of the ITB, read with clause 23.2.3 of
the ITB, if the amount quoted was defective in any manner, it was to be added on
and the evaluated bid price had to be worked out by the respondents to identify
the L-1 bidder. The tender conditions do not provide to reduce the bid amount,
and hence, the action pursued by the respondents was per se wrong and illegal in
all respects. The Learned Counsel submits that, if the bid was wrong, not ac-
ceptable or defective in any manner, at best they could have rejected it by virtue
of clause 11.3 of the ITB; under which circumstance, no adverse consequence was
to be resulted by way of forfeiture of the EMD or blacklisting of the petitioner. It
is with reference to the ‘unauthorised reduction’ of the bid amount, that the re-
spondents were insisting the petitioner vide Annexure P/5 to withdraw the bid,
so as to enable them to forfeit the EMD and to blacklist the Petitioner, which is
per se wrong and illegal.
13. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the ob-
jection raised as to the maintainability of the writ petition with reference to the
territorial jurisdiction has absolutely no basis as power of this Court is wide
enough by virtue of the specific provision under Article 226(2) of the Constitu-
tion of India which stipulates that the power of the Court under clause (1) to is-
sue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also
be exercised by this Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories
within which the cause of action, wholly or in part arises for the exercise of such
power notwithstanding that the seat of such Government/authority or the resi-
dence of such person is not within those territories. The Learned Counsel sub-
mits that Annexure P/2 NIT was issued for construction of roads for the Ta-
laipalli Coal Mining Project which is situated in Raigarh District of the State of
Chhattisgarh. The construction of the roads as above was for the benefit of gen-
eral public in the State and particularly at Raigarh and further the Respondents
had a project office at Raigarh in Chhattisgarh as well. This being the position,
the cause of action mainly or at least in part, had arisen at Raigarh in Chhattis-
garh and this Court is having the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. It is further
pointed out that, though there is a clause in the NIT stating that all disputes shall
be subject to jurisdiction of the Courts at Ranchi, it can have operation only when
an agreement is executed confining the jurisdiction to that place (when cause of

GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  66