JUDGMENT : Harisankar V. Menon, J. The petitioner has participated in an online bid conducted through the 2nd respondent, which is an online platform established by the Union of India for facilitating the bidding for various contracts floated by the PSU’s / Government departments. The 3rd respondent herein floated a contract through the 2nd respondent for the “maintenance of electrical equipment in BPCL – Kochi Refinery, for a period of two years”. The petitioner participated in the said online bid. 2. By Ext.P1, it is noticed that the petitioner quoted an amount of Rs.16,80,64,568/- inclusive of GST. The L1 pursuant to the said bid was for an amount of Rs.15,28,20,030/-. Since the petitioner was an MSME, the petitioner was entitled for certain benefits, whereby if the petitioner’s (MSME) bid was within a price band of 115% from the quoted rate of non-MSME, which comes at L1, the petitioner’s quoted rate would be recast and accepted at the same rate offered by the L1. Therefore, since the petitioner’s quoted rate was within the said price band, the petitioner’s quote was accepted and refixed at Rs.15,28,20,030/-. The petitioner accepted the said offer also. However, the problems arose subsequently, when the 2nd respondent chose to demand the “transaction charges” from the petitioner. The 2nd respondent, through Ext.P5, sought to demand an amount of Rs.8,00,854.37 towards the “transaction charges”, by adopting the amount of Rs.15,28,20,030/- as the basis. The petitioner took up a contention that the said calculation was not the correct one and the calculation ought to be made with reference to the amount of Rs.12,95,08,500/-, which was the value excluding the GST component. The 2nd respondent was not accepting the said contention, and the 2nd respondent decided to demand the “transaction charges” as calculated by it. 3. It is in the said circumstances, that the captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner herein, challenging Ext.P5 issued by the 2nd respondent as above. 4. A detailed counter affidavit dated 06.09.2024 is filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent herein, placing reliance on the general terms and conditions of the contract, produced as Ext.R2A as well as the Revenue Policy of the GeM, produced as Ext.R2B. 5. 4. A detailed counter affidavit dated 06.09.2024 is filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent herein, placing reliance on the general terms and conditions of the contract, produced as Ext.R2A as well as the Revenue Policy of the GeM, produced as Ext.R2B. 5. I have heard Sri.Jagan Abraham M.George, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.P.Deepak, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri.Johnson Gomez, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent herein and Sri.Kuryan Thomas, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. 6. Sri.Jagan Abraham M.George, the learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that, i. The liability of the petitioner to satisfy “transaction charges” is with reference to the net value of the contract, not inclusive of the GST component. ii. He would point out that the demand with respect to the “order value” and the reference to “total order value” is made by the 2nd respondent for the first time before this Court, in the counter affidavit. iii. He would also point out with reference to Ext.P1 offer made by the 3rd respondent, that the L1 price therein was not with reference to the tax component. iv. He would submit that the action of the 2nd respondent in demanding the “transaction charges” as above, amounts to double taxation. 7. Per contra, Sri.P.Deepak, the learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd respondent, contends that; i. The petitioner had participated in the tender floated by the 2nd respondent on behalf of the 3rd respondent pursuant to Exts.R2A and R2B. ii. He would refer to paragraph 6 of Ext.R2A and would contend that the general terms and conditions only speak about “offer price”. iii. With reference to paragraph 6 (iv) of Ext.R2A, the learned Senior Counsel points out that the “transaction charges” are being demanded by the 2nd respondent, with reference to the “offer price” available at paragraph 8 and the Revenue Policy at Ext.R2B and also the table available thereunder. iv. He would point out that the term “order value” is used in the counter affidavit for the first time, only for the reason that the petitioner in paragraph 7 of the writ petition made reference to the said term. v. He would also point out that the tender floated by the 2nd respondent had nowhere stated that the “order value” is “inclusive” or “exclusive”. 8. v. He would also point out that the tender floated by the 2nd respondent had nowhere stated that the “order value” is “inclusive” or “exclusive”. 8. Sri.Kuryan Thomas, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, would also join the issue by citing the judgments of the Apex Court in State of Kerala and Others v. Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd. and Others [ (2005) 11 SCC 1 ] and Messrs George Oakes (Private) Ltd. v. The State of Madras and Others [ (1961) 12 STC 476 ]. 9. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the connected records. 10. The short issue arising for consideration in this writ petition is as to the sustainability or otherwise of Ext.P5, by which the “transaction charges” are being demanded by the 2nd respondent herein. The petitioner, who participated in the tender floated by the 3rd respondent through the 2nd respondent maintains that the “transaction charges” are to be paid with reference to the total value quoted by them, excluding the GST component – the net value. However, the 2nd respondent maintains that it should be on the total value inclusive of the GST. 11. The fact that the petitioner participated in the tender floated by the 3rd respondent through the 2nd respondent is not in dispute. Exts.R2A and R2B are the documents, pursuant to which, the tender was floated and the petitioner participated therein. Ext.R2A prescribes the right of the 2nd respondent to collect “transaction charges” from those who are participating in the tender and coming out successful. A reference to paragraph 6 would show that the “offer price” on the portal floated through the 2nd respondent is an all-inclusive price, as is made clear through paragraph 8 of Ext.R2A, which reads as under; “i. Offer Prices on GeM shall be on all inclusive basis i.e., including all taxes, duties, local levies / transportation / loading – unloading charges etc. In the case of Bid / RA, complete break-up of the quoted price in the required price bid format shall furnished by the Bidder, before award of contract.” (underline supplied) Thus, the term “offer price” as far as the 2nd respondent is concerned, with reference to Ext.R2A, makes it clear that the price that is being quoted by a person who is participating in the tender is an all inclusive price. There can be two types of contracts or tenders. There can be two types of contracts or tenders. One, where an all inclusive price is to be quoted by the person participating in the tender, and the other, an exclusive contract wherein the taxes etc., are not taken into account. However, in the case at hand, Ext.R2A shows that the 2nd respondent requires those participating in the tender to quote an all inclusive price, and acting upon the same, the petitioner quoted the all inclusive price of Rs.16,80,64,568/-. It is not in dispute that the said amount was inclusive of GST. However, the said amount is reduced and refixed at Rs.15,28,20,030/- on account of the MSME status of the petitioner as noticed afore. The offer as above was sent to the petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P1 email dated 01.02.2024. The said email has been replied to also by the petitioner on 02.02.2024 by informing that the petitioner is ready and willing to “carry out the job at the price of the lowest bidder as declared by you in this email”. Therefore, the petitioner admits that they are ready and willing to accept the work at the price fixed in the email dated 01.02.2024. In the email dated 01.02.2024, the 3rd respondent has informed the petitioner that their tender is accepted at the “total order value” of Rs.15,28,20,030/-. It is the said offer from the side of the 3rd respondent which has been accepted by the petitioner. 12. At this juncture, we have to make reference to the demand for “transaction charges” and the rate at which, it is to be paid. The same is sought to be demanded with reference to Ext.R2B and the table available thereunder. In the table under Ext.R2B, the “transaction charges” are being demanded on a slab basis, which is fixed thereunder. As regards contracts in between 5 lakhs to 50 crores, the “transaction charges” are to be paid by the successful bidder at 0.45% of “order value”. Here, the term “order value” has to be considered with reference to Ext.P1. As already noticed, it has shown the “order value” at Rs.15,28,20,030/-. Insofar as the petitioner has accepted the said “order value” and since the documents at R2A, R2B and the tender submitted by the petitioner was for an all-inclusive price, the stand of the petitioner that they are not liable to pay the “transaction charges” demanded through Ext.P5 cannot be countenanced. 13. Insofar as the petitioner has accepted the said “order value” and since the documents at R2A, R2B and the tender submitted by the petitioner was for an all-inclusive price, the stand of the petitioner that they are not liable to pay the “transaction charges” demanded through Ext.P5 cannot be countenanced. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the demand of “transaction charges” on the “order value” inclusive of GST component amounts to double taxation. However, as already noticed, “transaction charges” are demanded with reference to “order value” alone. The said order value is inclusive of the GST only on account of paragraph 8 of Ext.R2A as already found. Merely because the order value includes GST, it cannot be said that there is double taxation insofar as the 2nd respondent collects GST on the transaction charges calculated as above. In Paprika Ltd. and Another v. Board of Trade [(1944) 1 All E.R. 372], it is held as under; “Whenever a sale attracts purchase tax, that tax presumably affects the price which the seller who is liable to pay the tax demands but it does not cease to be the price which the buyer has to pay even if the price is expressed as x plus purchase tax.” Again, in Love v. Norman Wright (Builders), Ltd. [ (1944) 1 All E.R. 618], it is held as under; “Where an article is taxed, whether by purchase tax, customs duty, or excise duty, the tax becomes part of the price which ordinarily the buyer will have to pay. The price of an ounce of tobacco is what it is because of the rate of tax, but on a sale there is only one consideration though made up of cost plus profit plus tax. So, if a seller offers goods for sale, it is for him to quote a price which includes the tax if he desires to pass it on to the buyer. So, if a seller offers goods for sale, it is for him to quote a price which includes the tax if he desires to pass it on to the buyer. If the buyer agrees to the price, it is not for him to consider how it is made up or whether the seller has included tax or not.” Thus, in the case at hand, the price payable for the contract entered into is inclusive of GST, does not mean that what is passed on is something other than “the consideration” for the activity, and that being so, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the alleged double taxation does not arise for consideration. 14. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition. Resultantly, this writ petition would stand dismissed.