Mandatory tender compliance with GSTR-3B filing held essential; belated submission could not cure non-responsive bid.
An expressly stipulated tender condition requiring upload of the latest GSTR-3B return with the bid was held to be mandatory, and compliance after the bid deadline did not cure the defect. The Court treated the omission as a material deviation under Rule 59 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013, affecting bid responsiveness rather than a curable procedural lapse. It also reiterated that writ interference in tender matters is limited: the procuring authority's interpretation of its conditions will not be disturbed absent mala fides, arbitrariness, irrationality, or overriding public interest. On these principles, the challenge to the tender decision failed.
Issues: (i) Whether the requirement to upload the latest GSTR-3B return along with the bid was a mandatory condition and whether failure to submit it within the prescribed time rendered the bid non-responsive; (ii) Whether interference in the tender decision was warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Issue (i): Whether the requirement to upload the latest GSTR-3B return along with the bid was a mandatory condition and whether failure to submit it within the prescribed time rendered the bid non-responsive.
Analysis: The tender condition expressly required submission of the latest GSTR-3B return with the bid, and the last date for submission of bids was fixed as the cut-off date for compliance. The return relied upon by the petitioner was filed after the bid deadline. Applying Rule 59 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013, the Court held that the omission was not a mere procedural irregularity but a material deviation affecting responsiveness of the bid.
Conclusion: The requirement was mandatory and the petitioner's belated compliance did not cure the defect. The bid was validly treated as non-responsive, against the petitioner.
Issue (ii): Whether interference in the tender decision was warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Analysis: The Court applied the settled principles governing judicial review in tender matters and held that the tendering authority is best placed to interpret its conditions. In the absence of demonstrable mala fides, arbitrariness, irrationality or overriding public interest, the Court will not substitute its view for that of the procuring authority. On the facts, no ground for interference was made out under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Conclusion: Interference was not warranted, and the challenge to the tender decision failed, against the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were rejected because the petitioner failed to satisfy an essential tender condition and no case for judicial review was established.
Ratio Decidendi: Non-compliance with an expressly stipulated and time-bound tender eligibility condition that materially affects bid responsiveness cannot be treated as a curable procedural lapse, and courts will not interfere in tender matters absent mala fides, arbitrariness, irrationality, or overriding public interest.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
