Rajesh Praful Chordiya vs. The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

Held

The Court held that the GST clearance certificate uploaded by the petitioner, issued by his Chartered Accountant, was not a valid substitute for a certificate issued by the GST Department. The Court reasoned that the tender document, by requiring a GST clearance certificate for services involving compulsory GST payment, implicitly mandated a certificate from the relevant government department. The Chartered Accountant's certificate, based on returns and not personal knowledge of tax payment, was insufficient. The Court distinguished the facts from Kimberley Club Private Limited, stating that a financial ability certificate (Haisiyat Pramanpatra) could be issued by various individuals, whereas a GST clearance certificate for compulsory government payment necessitates departmental issuance. The Court also noted that the petitioner possessed a valid GST clearance certificate from the appropriate officer but failed to upload it, preferring the private certificate. The Court found no merit in the submission that the petitioner should have been given time to rectify the documents, as the omission was of a substantial term. The petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Rajesh Praful Chordia, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of his technical bid for a tender floated by the Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti Elections of 2025 for providing pendol, furniture, and ancillary articles. The tender required a GST clearance certificate by the end of March 2025. The petitioner uploaded a certificate signed by his Chartered Accountant. The District Collector, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, rejected the petitioner's technical bid on the ground that the GST clearance certificate was not issued by the GST Department. The petitioner had also submitted a GST clearance certificate from the appropriate officer dated 17.10.2025, but he uploaded the Chartered Accountant's certificate on 15.10.2025, prior to the technical bid opening on 15.11.2025. The petitioner sought quashing of the communication dated 22.11.2025 and acceptance of his bid.

Key Issues

1. Whether the GST clearance certificate uploaded by the petitioner, issued by his Chartered Accountant, was a valid substitute for a certificate issued by the GST Department, as required by the tender document? The petitioner argued that the tender document did not specify that the GST clearance certificate must be issued by the GST Department, only that it should be a GST clearance certificate. He contended that his Chartered Accountant's certificate, based on GST returns for the financial year 2024-25, should have been accepted, especially since similar certificates were accepted elsewhere. He relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Kimberley Club Private Limited vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others, where a certificate not explicitly stated to be from a particular authority was accepted. The State argued that the tender document implicitly required a certificate from the concerned Department, as GST payment is compulsory. They contended that the Chartered Accountant's certificate did not claim personal knowledge of tax payment and was based solely on returns, making it insufficient for a mandatory condition at the technical bid stage. They also noted that the petitioner possessed a valid GST clearance certificate from the appropriate officer but failed to upload it.