Court upholds rejection of tender offer due to non-disclosure of TIN/CST Number

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of a tender offer for a pre-fab shelter construction project due to non-disclosure of the Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN)/Central Sales Tax (CST) Number. The court held that the requirement of providing the TIN number was mandatory as per the tender terms and conditions, and the petitioner's failure to meet this requirement rendered them ineligible to proceed with the bid. The court emphasized that compliance with specific tender conditions, including the TIN number disclosure, was essential for all participants, upholding the tendering board's decision to reject the bid.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of tender offer due to non-disclosure of Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN)/Central Sales Tax (CST) Number.

Analysis:
The petitioner's challenge in the writ petition was against the rejection of their offer in response to a tender for the construction of a pre-fab shelter due to non-disclosure of the Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN)/Central Sales Tax (CST) Number as required by the terms and conditions of the tender. The communication dated 30.01.2015 stated that the petitioner failed to produce the TIN number and had collected the demand draft for the earnest money without meeting the specified requirements. The petitioner argued that since other departments where they worked did not require the TIN number, it was not mandatory. However, the court found no merit in this argument, emphasizing that it is up to each department to decide on such requirements, and the tender form did not make the condition of registration under the Act as directory.

The court noted that the purpose of registration under the Act was for tax deduction at source from works contracts, for which tenders were invited. Since the petitioner was not registered under the Act and had taken back the earnest money, they were no longer a willing tenderer for the pre-fab shelter construction project. The court highlighted that the TIN number requirement was distinct from the Permanent Account Number required by the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the inadvertent mistake in the communication regarding the necessity of the TIN number did not grant the petitioner any rights.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the rejection of the petitioner's tender offer due to non-disclosure of the TIN number was justified based on the terms and conditions of the tender, which all participants were required to adhere to uniformly. The court upheld the decision of the tendering board to reject the bid as the petitioner did not meet the defined terms and conditions, including the requirement of disclosing the TIN number, necessary for tax deductions in works contracts.

---