2021 (11) TMI 976 - HC - GST

Court upholds rejection of bid for lack of GST number, emphasizing compliance with tender requirements.

The court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's bid for failing to provide a GST number, as the tender document required its submission and the ... Rejection of technical bid - failure to furnish the GST number, along with the bid - Rule 11 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- A bare perusal of the tender document (Annexure P-1) indicates that petitioner was required to upload the scanned copy of PAN Number and GST Number, duly signed and stamped. Concededly, the petitioner did not furnish the abovesaid documents. In such circumstances, the authorities cannot be faulted with in rejecting the technical bid submitted by the petitioner. On the other hand, admittedly, respondent No.2 had submitted the GST number, along with other necessary documents vide Annexure P-11. As regards contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to Rule 11 of the CGST Rules, the said contention is noticed only to be rejected, in view of the fact that the petitioner has not challenged the condition requiring furnishing of GST number. Once the petitioner had accepted all the terms and conditions of the tender and was well aware of the mandatory requirement of furnishing the GST number, now she cannot be permitted to say that she was not required to do so. In such a situation, it can be safely concluded that the authorities have rightly rejected her technical bid, being non-compliant. On the other hand, respondent No.2 had furnished the GST number and was the only tenderer remaining in the fray, and therefore, declared as technically compliant. From a bare perusal of the tender document, it is crystal clear that requirement of experience is not mandatory. Further, condition No.2 of the tender document envisages that preference would be given to those tenderers, who had, at least, one year experience in running the shops of identical in nature. Once possession of experience is not mandatory, non-submission of experience certificate by respondent No.2 does not disentitle him - as stated by respondent No.1 in its return, respondent No.2 has not been extended any benefit of experience under this clause. But, in fact, he has been allotted tender, for he fulfilled all the mandatory requirements of the tender document, and was the sole tenderer remaining in the fray. The only and the inevitable conclusion that could be reached is that the petition being bereft of merit is required to be dismissed - petition dismissed. Issues:Challenge to rejection of technical bid for not furnishing GST number, legality of rejection, exemption from obtaining GST number, validity of condition requiring GST number, comparative rent rates, submission of projected profit and loss statement, submission of experience certificate, mandatory requirements of tender document.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the rejection of her technical bid for not providing a GST number, claiming exemption from obtaining it. The petitioner argued that the decision was erroneous as she was exempted from having a GST number. The respondent authorities contended that the petitioner had accepted the terms, including furnishing the GST number, in her undertaking. The court noted that the tender document required the submission of PAN and GST numbers, which the petitioner failed to provide. The court found that the petitioner's claim of exemption from obtaining a GST number was misconceived, as she was engaged in a business not eligible for exemption. The court held that the authorities rightly rejected the petitioner's bid as non-compliant, while the successful bidder had furnished the necessary documents, including the GST number.The petitioner's argument regarding offering higher rent than the successful bidder was deemed inconsequential since she was technically non-compliant. The court clarified that comparative rent rates could only be considered by compliant tenderers. The petitioner also raised concerns about the successful bidder submitting a projected profit and loss statement and not providing an experience certificate. The court found that the tender document did not mandate the submission of an experience certificate, and the successful bidder had fulfilled all mandatory requirements, making him eligible for the tender.The court addressed the issue of rejected bids due to the absence of experience certificates, clarifying that the instances cited were unrelated to the current case. The court concluded that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it accordingly. The court disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications since the main case had been decided.