A. Krishna Reddy, S/O. Gopal Reddy vs. The State Of Telangana Rep. By Its Prl. Secretary

Held

The Court held that the petitioner did not comply with the terms and conditions of the tender by failing to furnish a VAT Certificate valid for the current year. The petitioner's argument that the existing VAT certificate was valid for 12 months and that GST introduction rendered it unnecessary was not accepted. The Court noted that the petitioner could have obtained a valid VAT Certificate as of the tender filing date but failed to do so. Consequently, the tendering authority's decision to disqualify the petitioner on the ground of non-furnishing of the mandatory certificate was upheld. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the tendering authority's decision and therefore dismissed the writ petition. No specific issue was left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, a Class I contractor, applied for a tender for the restoration of Ramasamudram Tank. The tender notice was issued on August 24, 2017, with an estimated contract value of Rs. 1,56,97,652/-. The petitioner submitted a bid, but was disqualified despite being the lowest tenderer. The reason for disqualification was the alleged failure to upload the GST or CST document and a VAT Registration and Clearance certificate for the current year. The petitioner had submitted a VAT Clearance certificate issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Miryalguda, which was valid for 12 months from its issue date, covering tax up to July 2016. The High Court had initially granted status quo. The revenue's counsel pointed out that other tenderers had submitted VAT certificates valid for the current year, while the petitioner's certificate was only valid up to July 2016.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was disqualified on valid grounds for not furnishing a VAT Registration and Clearance certificate valid for the current year, considering the introduction of GST? (Question of law and fact). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the VAT certificate obtained was valid for 12 months and that with the introduction of GST, a separate VAT certificate for the current year was not necessary. They contended that the existing certificate was in force until the introduction of GST and should have been considered sufficient. Revenue's contention: The revenue argued that the petitioner failed to comply with the tender conditions by not submitting a VAT Certificate valid for the current year, unlike other tenderers. They maintained that the tendering authority was justified in disqualifying the petitioner based on this non-compliance.