Tender rejection for non-filing GST returns upheld despite previous compliance record

The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a tender bid that was denied solely for non-filing of GST returns for March and April 2023, despite having filed returns for the previous 5 months. The court relied on the SC precedent in Tata Motors Ltd v. BEST, which held that clerical errors in documentation do not render an entire bid unlawful. Since another bidder had already been selected as L-1 and no grounds for favoritism were established, the petition was dismissed without merit.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the rejection of a bid in a tender process based on incomplete GST returns and the subsequent legal challenge regarding the disqualification of the petitioner and the selection of another bidder.

Summary:

Issue 1: Rejection of Bid Based on GST Returns
The Respondent No. 2, the Municipal Council, rejected the bid of the Petitioner in a tender process for the construction of a road due to incomplete GST returns. The Petitioner challenged this rejection through a writ petition, arguing that the disqualification was arbitrary, discriminatory, and against the terms of the tender document. The Petitioner highlighted that another successful bidder also had issues with filing returns. The Petitioner sought the court to declare the disqualification as arbitrary and illegal.

Issue 2: Legal Challenge and Judicial Review
The Petitioner contended that the rejection of their bid was without proper consideration and that the selection of another bidder was in non-compliance with the tender terms. Citing legal precedents, including the case of Union of India v. Dinesh Engg. Corpn., the Petitioner argued for the need for a judicial review to ensure fairness and compliance with the law in tender processes. The court considered the arguments presented by the Petitioner, analyzed the documents, and referred to the judgment in Tata Motors Limited v. The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking, emphasizing the need for restraint in judicial review of contractual matters.

Judgment:
After considering the submissions and legal principles, including the caution against interference in contractual matters unless arbitrariness or bias is evident, the court dismissed the writ petition. The court noted that the selected bidder had already been finalized, and there were no sufficient grounds to overturn the decision or interfere in the tender process. Citing the importance of public interest and the potential financial implications of disrupting the tender process, the court upheld the selection of the successful bidder and dismissed the petition, finding it lacked merit.

---