2025 (10) TMI 671 - HC - GST

Challenge to tender rejected; bidder disqualified for failing S.S. Maplitho declaration and Tariff Code 4802 certification

HC dismissed the petition, upholding the technical disqualification of the bidder and refusal to open its financial bid. The court found the bid ... Challenge to notification/notice dated 18.08.2025 - financial bid of the petitioner shall not be opened - petitioner has been technically disqualified in the tender - seeking a declaration that petitioner be declared technically qualified and the financial bid of the petitioner be opened - HELD THAT:- Clearly, the Chapter 48 contains various kinds of papers. As per the NIT, the requirement was to certify as to how much stock of empty printing paper has been cleared under tariff Code 4802. Clearly, the bid of the petitioner was not responsive and did not meet the concern specification. Further, it is noted that the bidder had to file a declaration that the paper being offered was S.S. (surface sizing Maplitho Printing Paper) and a notarized declaration to the said effect was to be given while giving the declaration. Petitioner omitted the word 'S.S. (surface sized)' and give a declaration that the paper being provided or being offered was Watermark Maplitho Printing Paper. Even in the sample which was submitted, the words 'SS (surface sized)' was omitted. Clearly, the tender specification required provision of S.S. (surface sized) Maplitho Paper, admittedly which is not the paper offered by the petitioner. On these grounds alone, the bid of the petitioner was non-responsive and the action of the respondents in declaring the same to be non responsive and petitioner to be technically disqualified cannot be faulted. The contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioner that S.S. Maplitho Printing Paper with inter alia Wax pick No pick on 10A with 20% mechanical Pulp maximum is not possible at all, is not the subject matter of the said petition as petitioner has not challenged the tender specification and has only challenged its rejection which as noticed hereinabove cannot be faulted with because the bid of the petitioner was clearly non-responsive primarily on the ground of not giving a declaration that petitioner had cleared specified quantity under Tariff Code 4802 of GST. There are no fault in the decision of the respondents in declaring the petitioner to be technically disqualified - there are no merit in the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the declaration of a bidder as 'technically disqualified' was valid where the bidder's submissions did not comply with express documentary requirements of the notice inviting tender (NIT), specifically: (a) a clearance certificate specifying quantity cleared under GST Tariff Code 4802; and (b) a notarized declaration that the paper offered was 'S.S. (surface sized) Maplitho Printing Paper'. 2. Whether a post-facto laboratory test report and a produced sample (tested on the bidder's representation) can cure or negate non-responsiveness arising from failures to meet express documentary requirements of the NIT. 3. Whether the claim that the tender specification is technically impossible (i.e., that the specified product cannot exist) falls for determination in a challenge that only contests the technical disqualification of the bidder and does not directly impugn the tender specifications. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Validity of technical disqualification for non-compliance with express NIT documentary requirements Legal framework: The NIT sets out mandatory pre-qualification and responsiveness requirements; a bid is non-responsive where required documentary proofs are not furnished in the form and detail specified. Tender conditions requiring a clearance certificate specifying quantities cleared under a particular GST Tariff Code and a notarized declaration regarding the exact product being offered are conditions precedent to responsiveness. Precedent Treatment: No judicial precedents were cited or relied upon by the Court in the judgment. Interpretation and reasoning: The NIT expressly required a clearance certificate certifying clearance of empty printing paper under Tariff Code 4802 (Uncoated paper and paperboard used for writing/printing). The bidder submitted a certificate stating clearance of 92,216 MT under Chapter 48 (which encompasses tariff codes 4801-4823 and many distinct paper types), but did not specify clearance under 4802. That omission meant the certificate did not satisfy the express requirement. Separately, the NIT required a notarized declaration that the paper offered was 'S.S. (surface sized) Maplitho Printing Paper'; the bidder omitted the term 'S.S. (surface sized)' in its declaration and sample documentation. The Court treated both omissions as material and determinative of non-responsiveness because they failed to meet the precise terms of the tender conditions. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A bid that fails to provide mandatory documentary specifications set out in the NIT (specific tariff-code-based clearance and the exact notarized product declaration) is non-responsive and may be validly declared technically disqualified. Obiter - Observations on the range of paper types under Chapter 48 serving explanatory context. Conclusion: The technical disqualification was valid. The bidder's failure to certify clearance under Tariff Code 4802 and failure to give the required notarized declaration that the paper was 'S.S. (surface sized) Maplitho Printing Paper' rendered the bid non-responsive. Issue 2 - Effect of produced sample and test report on responsiveness Legal framework: Responsiveness is determined by compliance with the bid conditions and documentary requirements as prescribed by the NIT; evidence produced after bid rejection does not automatically cure pre-existing non-responsiveness unless the tender regime permits such curative supplementation under its terms. Precedent Treatment: No precedent considered or adopted in the judgment regarding post-bid testing or curing of defects. Interpretation and reasoning: The respondents produced a test report showing the sample met specifications; however, the Court noted the sample was tested on the representation that it was S.S. Maplitho paper. The Court emphasized that the petition before it challenged only the communication of technical disqualification and did not challenge the tender specification or seek amendment of the bid. The Court therefore treated the post-facto test report as insufficient to negate the formal non-responsiveness created by failure to comply with the NIT's documentary stipulations at the time of bidding. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Post-rejection production of a test report premised on the bidder's representation does not cure a bid's non-responsiveness where mandatory documentary requirements prescribed by the NIT were not met at the time of submission. Obiter - Remarks noting the provenance of the test report being based on the bidder's representation. Conclusion: The test report did not vitiate the valid technical disqualification because documentary non-compliance under the NIT remained unremedied when responsiveness was to be assessed. Issue 3 - Consequences of not challenging tender specification (claim that specification is technically impossible) Legal framework: A challenge to the validity or feasibility of tender specifications must be made by appropriate pleadings and is separate from a challenge to a bidder's disqualification; courts decide only the issues placed before them. Precedent Treatment: No precedents were cited. Interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner contended that the specified S.S. Maplitho paper with certain wax-pick and mechanical pulp percentages was not technically possible. The Court observed this contention relates to the validity or technical feasibility of the tender specification, which was not the subject matter of the present petition. Because the petition only impugned the communication declaring the bidder technically disqualified and did not attack the specification itself, the Court refrained from adjudicating the alleged technical impossibility. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Courts will not adjudicate issues not pleaded or within the scope of the challenge before them; a claim that tender specifications are defective or technically impossible must be raised and contested in proceedings that directly challenge those specifications. Obiter - The Court left open the question of whether the specification is technically feasible. Conclusion: The Court did not decide the contention that the tender specification was technically defective or impossible; that issue remains open as it was not the subject of challenge in the petition. Final Disposition (consequential conclusion) Because the bid was non-responsive for failing to comply with express NIT requirements (failure to specify clearance under Tariff Code 4802 and omission of 'S.S. (surface sized)' in the required declaration and sample), the decision declaring the bidder technically disqualified was upheld and the petition challenging that declaration was dismissed.