Bombay HC upholds tender award dismissing challenge over GST interpretation in financial bids under NIT clause 10(B)

The Bombay HC dismissed a petition challenging tender award for manpower services. Petitioners bid 1.18 while successful respondent bid 1.03. The court held that GST was payable over and above the bid amount as per NIT clause 10(B), not included within the financial bid. The court emphasized that judicial review in tender matters has narrow scope and courts cannot read terms not reflected in the NIT. Finding no merit in the challenge, the petition was dismissed, upholding the award to the lowest bidder.

---

---

Issues involved: Challenge to acceptance of bid in a tender for providing manpower based on pricing and inclusion of GST.

Details of the Judgment:

1. Pricing Discrepancy Issue:
- The petition challenged the acceptance of respondent No.2's bid in a tender for providing manpower, as it was lower than the petitioner's bid which included GST in the service charges.
- Petitioner argued that respondent No.2's bid, though lower, would be less than 1% of the amount specified in the tender document if GST was deducted, making it non-responsive.
- Respondent No.1 defended the acceptance of the bid, stating that the service charge only needed to be at least 1% of the total amount specified in the tender, and GST was to be paid separately.

2. Interpretation of Tender Terms Issue:
- The note appended to the tender clause specified that the service charge should not be less than 1% of the figure mentioned in the tender document, without mentioning GST inclusion.
- Respondent No.2 argued that since the tender document did not require GST to be included in the bid, their offer of 1.03% service charge was compliant and rightly accepted.
- The court noted that the tender terms did not explicitly state that GST should be part of the financial bid, and the bid evaluation did not include GST in the calculations.

3. Judicial Review and Contract Award Issue:
- The court emphasized the narrow scope of judicial review in tender matters, stating that terms not explicitly mentioned in the tender document cannot be imposed.
- The contract had already been awarded to respondent No.2, and the work had commenced, leading the court to dismiss the petition as there was no merit to interfere based on the arguments presented.

In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay dismissed the petition challenging the acceptance of the bid in a manpower tender, ruling that the bid of respondent No.2 was compliant with the tender terms, which did not require GST to be included in the financial bid. The court highlighted the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters and upheld the award of the contract to respondent No.2.

---