Jai Bhawani Construction vs Union of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(Pat) 2121

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
Jai Bhawani Construction – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M/s Prabhat Ranjan, Chandan Kumar.
For the Respondent: M/s Archana Meenakshee, Mahendra Pd. Verma.
For the State : M/s Vikash Kumar, Akash Chaturvedi.
(In CWJC No. 2734 of 2019)
For the Petitioner: M/s Prabhat Ranjan, Chandan Kumar.
For the Respondent: M/s Vikash Kumar, Archana Meenakshee.
(In CWJC No. 2857 of 2019)
For the Petitioner: M/s Prabhat Ranjan, Chandan Kumar.
For the State : Mr. Vijay Bharti.
For the Union of Inda : Mr. Asst. S.G., Ms. Archana Meenakshee.
(In CWJC No. 1453 of 2019)
For the Petitioner: M/s Prabhat Ranjan, Chandan Kumar.
For the Respondent: Ms. Archana Meenakshee.
(In CWJC No. 24529 of 2018)
For the Petitioner: M/s Prabhat Ranjan, Chandan Kumar.
For the State : Mr. Deepak Sahay Jamuar.
For the Respondent: M/s S.D. Sanjay, Anshay Bahadur Mathur.
(In CWJC No. 3288 of 2019)
For the Petitioner: M/s Prabhat Ranjan, Chandan Kumar.
For the Respondent: Ms. Archana Meenakshee.
For the U.O.I. : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Verma.
(In CWJC No. 3316 of 2019)
For the Petitioner: M/s Prabhat Ranjan, Chandan Kumar.
For the Respondent: M/s Vikash Kumar, Archana Meenakshee.
(In CWJC No. 8068 of 2019)
For the Petitioner: Mr.Prabhat Ranjan.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Kumar.
(In CWJC No. 8205 of 2019)
For the Petitioner: M/s Prabhat Ranjan, Chandan Kumar.
For the Respondent: M/s Vikash Kumar, Archana Meenakshee.
(In CWJC No. 8214 of 2019)
For the Petitioner: M/s Prabhat Ranjan, Chandan Kumar.
For the Respondent: M/s Vikash Kumar, Archana Meenakshee.

Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel representing the State as well as learned Assistant Solicitor General representing the Union of India.

2. All these writ applications are raising a common question as to the effect of coming into force of the Goods and Services Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “GST Act, 2017”) in respect of the tenders which were floated prior to coming into force of the Act of 2017 and in respect thereof the agreement i.e. the Standard Bidding Document (in short the “SBD”) applicable in the Works Departments of the Government of Bihar contains Clause 35 which deals with the condition of reimbursement of levy/taxes if levied after receipt of the tenders. Similar provision is there in the Model Bidding Document (in short ‘MBD’).

3. The petitioners moved this court stating that they had participated in the tender process prior to coming into force of the GST Act, 2017, when Bihar VAT Act, 2005 was in force and applicable in relation to the contracts in question. According to the petitioners, after coming in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(Pat) 2121

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASADJai Bhawani Construction – AppellantVersusUnion of India – Respondent

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
Jai Bhawani Construction – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent