JUDGMENT : Respondents 2 and 3 invited tender for a work titled “NABARD RIDF XXII Infrastructural works in Kurinjikkal Construction of Bridge across Puzhakkalthodu in Kurinjikkal Puthurkkara in Thrissur District” for an estimated cost of Rs.4,11,42,054/-. Petitioner bid for the work and his tender was accepted for an amount of Rs.3,92,70,000/-. 2. Ext.P1 was the Notice Inviting Tender (for short 'NIT') for the said work. Interpretation of Clause 3.3.3 in the said NIT is called for, in this writ petition. For the purpose of easier comprehension the said Clause is extracted as below:- “3.3.3. The rates quoted by the Bidder shall include cost of all materials and conveyance, labour charges, hire charges of plant and machinery, overheads and all incidental charges for execution of the contract. The rate quoted shall also include all statutory taxes and other mandatory remittances payable by the contractor as per existing tax systems and government orders which are applicable to the contract, except Goods and service Tax (GST).” (emphasis supplied) Petitioner contends that when he quoted for the tender he had not included the component of tax for GST as the tender document stipulated so, as per Clause 3.3.3 of Ext.P1. It is also pleaded that the prescribed format of BoQ also did not contain any clause to incorporate the GST component of tax. 3. Petitioner contends that thereafter, when the bill was submitted, respondents refused to pay the component of GST. Immediately, petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.22433 of 2020 and by judgment dated 23.10.2020, this Court directed a decision to be taken on the representation submitted by the petitioner. Pursuant to the said direction Ext.P9 order was issued by the 3rd respondent, declining the claim put forth by the petitioner. For the purpose of reference, the order in Ext.P9 is extracted as below:- “Regarding the matter of GST, KLDC is a Government owned company which adopts rules and regulations of government, especially PWD orders and circulars from time to time. The estimate for the works before 15.03.2019 is prepared based on the cost indices as per circular in reference cited (1), which is inclusive of GST provision and hence, the rate of each item includes GST component also. As per the reference (2) cited, the base estimate is prepared based on rates devoid of GST with effect from 15.03.2019. The estimate for the works before 15.03.2019 is prepared based on the cost indices as per circular in reference cited (1), which is inclusive of GST provision and hence, the rate of each item includes GST component also. As per the reference (2) cited, the base estimate is prepared based on rates devoid of GST with effect from 15.03.2019. Hence for tenders invited based on estimate prepared after 15.03.2019, the contractor can quote rate without taxes, and taxes will be given extra. Thus, for the agreements executed prior to the circular date in reference (3), the contractors are not entitled to obtain any additional claim by way of any other tax including GST.” 4. In this writ petition while impugning Ext.P9, petitioner claims for a declaration that the terms of Ext.P1 govern the contract, apart from a direction to the respondents to clear all the bills raised by the petitioner. The contention raised by the petitioner is that, when the respondents put forth Ext.P1 tender, inviting bids to be submitted without including GST, they cannot thereafter turn around and canvas the proposition that the bids ought to have included the GST component. 5. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the payment of GST is a statutory obligation of the person who render the service or carry any work of contract for the Government. It was also stated that the word 'Except' in Clause 3.3.3 of Ext.P1 was intended to avoid a separate GST amount in the bid, but that it was always included in the estimate and further that all other bidders quoted their bid by including the GST amount and also that other bidders had not interpreted the word 'Except' in Clause 3.3.3 of Ext.P1 in the manner interpreted by the petitioner. It was also pleaded that if other bidders had not included GST in their quotes their bids would have been lower than that of the petitioner. The counter affidavit further goes on to state that by order dated 27.01.2018, Government had specified in G.O (P) No.2/2018/PWD, that the tax payer must pay the GST directly to the tax system and also that the Government does not provide goods and service tax beyond the contract amount. The counter affidavit further goes on to state that by order dated 27.01.2018, Government had specified in G.O (P) No.2/2018/PWD, that the tax payer must pay the GST directly to the tax system and also that the Government does not provide goods and service tax beyond the contract amount. According to the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent is not entitled to pay the GST amount to the contractor in view of the situation mentioned as per instruction No.25 issued by the Government in the aforesaid circular. It was asserted that Ext.P9 order was issued in accordance with law, not arbitrary and was not susceptible to challenge. 6. I have heard Adv. Karthika Maria on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader Adv. Sabeena P. Ismail on behalf of the 1st respondent and Adv. Baijuraj G. on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. 7. The notice inviting tender produced as Ext.P1 is specific to the work in question. The mind of the employer in a contract is made evident through the notice inviting tender. Though the notice inviting tender is not by itself binding upon the parties, when the said document is acted upon by another party to the contract there arises certain binding obligations, based purely upon the terms specified in Ext.P1. De hors what happened before or after, the terms in Ext.P1 are required to be abided with. The bidders cannot vary or detract from the terms specified in that document. Viewed in the above perspective, irrespective of the Government order issued as G.O (P) No.2/2018/PWD dated 27.01.2018, if the 2nd respondent proceeded with the tender in question, incorporating specific terms that the bids must quote rates 'except' GST in Clause 3.3.3 as extracted earlier, it cannot be gainsaid later, by the employer to the contract, that the bids ought to have quoted rates including GST. It needs no elaboration to conclude that the said terms “except goods and service tax” being specific to the contract in question must govern the terms and conditions of the contract. 8. It is further pointed out by Adv. It needs no elaboration to conclude that the said terms “except goods and service tax” being specific to the contract in question must govern the terms and conditions of the contract. 8. It is further pointed out by Adv. Karthika Maria by referring to Ext.P3, BoQ (Bill of Quantities) that it is specifically provided that “BoQ template must not be modified/replaced by the bidder and the same should be uploaded after filling the relevant columns, else the bidder is liable to be rejected for this tender.” A further reference was made to Column No.7 which clearly specified that the total amount must be given “without taxes.” A perusal of the above referred BoQ makes it obvious that when the template was created for the BoQ, respondents 2 and 3 had in mind the terms stipulated in Ext.P1. 9. A bill of quantities itemises all work to enable a contractor to price the work for which he is bidding. It is issued to tenderers to enable them to prepare the price for carrying out the work. The BoQ assists tenderers in the calculation of costs for their tender. It also enables all bidding contractors to price the same quantities and provides a level playing field for all bidders. 10. In other words, even the BoQ did not contemplate the goods and service tax to be included as part of the bid to be submitted by the contractor. This Court also bears in mind that the respondents have no case that the BoQ template provided by them was wrong. 11. In this context it is apposite to refer to the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Appeal No.445 of 2018 dated 18.12.2019. The said decision is reported as C.A George V. State of Kerala and Others [AIR 2021 NOC 77]. Though the situation in the abovesaid case was slightly different, the issue considered by the Court was whether the petitioner in that case was called upon to give the bid amount without the taxes or as exclusive of the taxes. After referring to the issues involved therein it was held by this Court that “the conditions of the notice inviting tender by itself does not amount to a contract. A contract comes into existence only when the price quoted by the contractor is accepted by the department. After referring to the issues involved therein it was held by this Court that “the conditions of the notice inviting tender by itself does not amount to a contract. A contract comes into existence only when the price quoted by the contractor is accepted by the department. In the document which provides for the price bid, when there is clear instruction that the price should be without taxes, the bidder cannot be blamed for having not incorporated the tax element in the bid document. Yet another contention urged is that without taxes indicates that it is without service tax. If that be the case, it ought to have been specifically mentioned in the BoQ and therefore, such a contention is not sustainable.” 12. Yet another contention raised by Adv. Baijuraj G. is with reference to the estimate prepared. The estimate prepared by the respondents is an internal document. It cannot bind third parties. The estimate prepared by the employer is only a guiding document to the employer. It cannot be held to be binding upon the bidders unless the estimate was made part of the notice inviting tenders. 13. Viewed in the above perceptive, it is limpid that, since the terms “except goods and service tax” was specified in Clause 3.3.3 of Ext.P1, the petitioner could only have quoted the bid amount, without including the GST. 14. Yet another contention raised by the respondents relate to the rates quoted by other contractors as inclusive of GST. The answer to this contention need not detain this Court for long as the same is also answered by the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of C.A George (supra) where this Court had held in Paragraph 13 thus:- “13. Though learned Government Pleader points out that all other contractors have quoted the rates inclusive of taxes, we do not think that we should venture to consider the approach taken by other contractors. In the case on hand, this particular contractor had made a quote based on the tender document supplied to him and when in the BOQ, he is expected to give the rate for each item and he was called upon to give the rate “without taxes”, he could only give a rate without taxes. His experience in the filed and the approach of the PWD authorities are irrelevant matters in considering a specific contract.” 15. His experience in the filed and the approach of the PWD authorities are irrelevant matters in considering a specific contract.” 15. In view of the above, the claim of the writ petitioner is justifiable and Ext.P9 is contrary to the settled propositions of law. Accordingly, I declare that the terms and conditions contained in Ext.P1 shall govern contract for the work titled NABARD RIDF XXII Infrastructural works in Kurinjikkal Construction of Bridge across Puzhakkalthodu and set aside Ext.P9. It is also held that petitioner was not bound to include GST in the bid quoted by him pursuant to Ext.P1 NIT. This writ petition is therefore allowed as above. 16. Since GST is an indirect tax, the liability to pay the same falls upon the employer to the contract and accordingly there will be a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to pay the GST component against the bills raised by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is allowed as above.