2018 (6) TMI 301 - HC - GST

Bid for parking contract rejected due to non-furnishing of GST number upheld

Sher Singh Versus State of Punjab and others

The court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's bid for a parking contract at Sabzi Mandi due to non-furnishing of the GST number, despite the bid ... Tender inquiry for award of contract - tender inquiry has been rejected on the ground that GST number had not been furnished - Held that:- Clause 8 (v) of the Standard Bidding Document calling upon each bidder to submit last filed GST return along with GST number would be construed as an essential term of the contract - The petitioner having admittedly not complied with such condition, there would be no infirmity as regards rejection of his technical bid - petition dismissed. Issues:Challenge to rejection of bid based on non-furnishing of GST number in tender inquiry process.Analysis:The petitioner filed a petition challenging the rejection of their bid in a tender inquiry for parking contract at Sabzi Mandi. The petitioner argued that their bid was the most competitive, yet the contract was awarded to another party. The main contention was the rejection of the technical bid due to the non-furnishing of the GST number. The petitioner alleged discrimination as the winning bidder also did not provide the GST number but was still awarded the contract. The petitioner argued against a selective relaxation of the GST number requirement, advocating for a uniform approach for all bidders. However, after hearing the petitioner's counsel and examining the records, the court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it.The court noted that as per Clause 8(v) of the Standard Bidding Document, each bidder was required to submit a copy of the last filed GST return along with the GST number. The petitioner admitted to not providing the GST number. The court referred to an order rejecting the petitioner's representation, which confirmed that the winning bidder had indeed uploaded their GST number as required. The court emphasized that the clause regarding the submission of the GST number was an essential term of the contract. Since the petitioner failed to comply with this condition, the rejection of their bid was deemed appropriate.In conclusion, the court found no merit in the petition challenging the rejection of the bid based on the non-furnishing of the GST number. The court upheld the decision to reject the petitioner's bid, emphasizing the importance of complying with the specified requirements in the bidding process. Therefore, the petition was dismissed by the court.