Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchPC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11A supplier’s duty to pay GST does not automatically give the supplier a right to add the tax to a customer’s bill. In a reported Kerala High Court decision, the court treated tax liability to the government and the right to pass the cost to a recipient as separate questions: the contract or tender terms govern whether a separate charge is allowed.
What did the Kerala High Court reportedly decide?
In V.P. Sugathan v. Travancore Devaswom Board, WP(C) No. 42585 of 2024, the Kerala High Court reportedly rejected a supplier’s request to collect an additional GST amount where the tender did not authorize charging it on top of the stated fee. LiveLaw Biz reported the decision on 10 October 2026 and gave the citation as 2026 LLBiz HC(KER) 195. The merits account and citation are from that report; the full merits judgment was not located for independent verification.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
LiveLaw Biz quoted the court as saying: “The liability of a supplier to discharge the tax payable under the statute and the question as to whether the supplier is entitled to pass on the burden of such tax to the recipient are distinct and separate matters.” It also reported the court’s view that the right to collect tax from a recipient is governed by the contract between them. Read LiveLaw Biz’s report.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →What happened in the tender dispute?
According to LiveLaw Biz, V.P. Sugathan held a tender to collect fees from artists performing Chendamelam during Pettathullal at Erumeli in the Mandalam-Makaravilakku season of 1200 ME. The tender allowed a charge of ₹50 per performance. The report says Sugathan paid ₹46,98,117 toward the tender amount and ₹8,40,261 in GST at 18%.
Sugathan sought to collect another ₹9 per performance for GST, which would have made the charge ₹59. The Travancore Devaswom Board limited the collection to ₹50, taking the position that the prescribed amount included taxes. Sugathan also sought reimbursement from the Board for GST he said he could not recover from the artists. The report says the court dismissed the petition without costs, finding no statutory or contractual basis for the additional collection or reimbursement. These figures and merits details describe this reported dispute, not general GST rates or typical tender terms. See the case details in LiveLaw Biz’s report.
Can a supplier charge GST separately if the price is stated as inclusive of tax?
Not automatically. If the contract fixes a tax-inclusive price, a supplier generally needs some contractual or other legal basis to add GST on top of it. A supplier’s obligation to remit GST under tax law does not, by itself, change the amount the parties agreed the recipient would pay.
That is not a rule that GST can never be collected separately. The report says the parties may agree to consideration inclusive or exclusive of tax. Where the contract expressly permits tax to be added, that term may support separate recovery, subject to the applicable GST rules. The tender or agreement, its tax clause, and any relevant statutory provision must be read together.
What should a customer or supplier check?
- How is the price described? Look for wording such as “inclusive of GST” or “exclusive of GST.”
- Does the contract or tender authorize a separate tax charge? Check the price clause, tax clause, schedule of rates, and any incorporated terms.
- Is there another legal basis for the requested payment? A supplier seeking reimbursement from a contracting authority needs a basis for that claim, not merely proof that tax was paid.
- Who is being asked to pay? A claim against the service recipient and a claim for reimbursement from the contracting authority are distinct. The terms governing each relationship matter.
What is confirmed about the case record?
An Indian Kanoon reproduction shows that an earlier procedural order in the same case was issued on 9 December 2024. It granted time for counter-affidavits and listed the matter for 7 January 2025; it is not the merits decision. That order names Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S. LiveLaw Biz identifies Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan V and K.V. Jayakumar as the merits bench. The different bench composition may reflect a later stage, but the available procedural order does not establish the chronology or independently confirm the final judgment date. Read the 9 December 2024 procedural order reproduction.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
