Page 67 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

2020 ] SHANTI ENGGICON PVT. LTD. v. NTPC LTD. 153
action/dispute is arising in different places conferring jurisdiction upon different
Courts). Reference is made to Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
in this regard. The Learned Counsel submits that insofar as no agreement has
been executed and that stage is still to be reached, the jurisdiction of this Court
cannot be ousted in any manner. Reliance is sought to be placed on the verdicts
passed by the Apex Court in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Another v. A.P. Agencies,
Salem, [(1989) 2 SCC 163, paragraphs 13 to 17].
14. It will be worthwhile to extract paragraph 15 of the judgment re-
ported in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. (supra) for easy reference :
“15. In the matter of a contract there may arise causes of action of various
kinds. In a suit for damages for breach of contract the cause of action con-
sists of the making of the contract, and of, its breach, so that the suit may be
filed either at the place where the contract was made or at the place where
it should have been performed and the breach occurred. The making of the
contract is part of the cause of action. A suit on a contract, therefore, can be
filed at the place where it was made. The determination of the place where
the contract was made is part of the law of contract. But making of an offer
on a particular place does not form cause of action in a suit for damages for
breach of contract. Ordinarily, acceptance of an offer and its intimation re-
sult in a contract and hence a suit can be filed in a court within whose juris-
diction the acceptance was communicated. The performance of a contract is
part of cause of action and a suit in respect of the breach can always be filed
at the place where the contract should have been performed or its perfor-
mance completed. If the contract is to be performed at the place where it is
made, the suit on the contract is to be filed there and nowhere else. In suits
for agency actions the cause of action arises at the place where the contract
of agency was made or the place where actions are to be rendered and
payment is to be made by the agent. Part of cause of action arises where
money is expressly or impliedly payable under a contract. In case of repu-
diation of a contract, the place where repudiation is received is the place
where the suit would lie. If a contract is pleaded as part of the cause of ac-
tion giving jurisdiction to the court where the suit is filed and that contract
is found to be invalid, such part of cause of action disappears. The above
are some of the connecting factors.”
Similarly, reliance is also placed on the verdict passed by the Apex Court in Elec-
tion Commission of India v. Saka Venkata Rao [AIR 1953 SC 210, paragraphs 6 and
7], besides citing (with permission) the verdict passed by a Learned Single Judge
of the Karnataka High Court reported in Millipore India Private Ltd. v. Govt. of
India & Others [AIR 2002 Karnataka 280, paragraphs 9, 11, 13, 14 and 15] referring
to various judgments rendered by the Apex Court.
15. With regard to the merits involved, the Learned Counsel for the Pe-
titioner submits that the existence of two different rates of GST by virtue of An-
nexure P/4 amendment brought about and notified on 22-8-2017 in respect of the
construction of roads for public purpose (Section B - 12%) and internal/private
purpose (Section C - 18%) is not denied by the respondents. Since Annexure P/4
governed the field on the date of issuance of the tender i.e. on 9-9-2019, it was for
the respondents to have taken note of the situation and to have provided appro-
priate columns for making entries in the web portal with different rates, which
admittedly is not satisfied. Confusion was there in the minds of the other partici-
pants as well, as revealed from Annexure R/1 price bids quoted by the partici-
pants. The rate of GST quoted by a bidder by name Sunil Kumar Agrawal, in
column No. 18 is only ‘12%’, whereas another bidder by name R.K. Transport &
GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  67