Nazimuddin Ahmed vs. The Principal Secretary And 3 Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Nazimuddin Ahmed, challenged the rejection of his bid for the settlement of the Balipara Weekly Market. A tender notice was issued by the Block Development Officer, Kalaigaon Development Block, on June 27, 2023. The petitioner and respondent no. 4 were among the bidders. The petitioner's bid of ₹1,01,000 was the highest, while respondent no. 4 bid ₹65,200. The petitioner submitted all required documents except a GST certificate, which he contended was optional as his annual aggregate turnover did not exceed ₹20,00,000. Despite this, the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) authorities settled the market in favour of respondent no. 4 on August 2, 2023, effective from July 1, 2023. The petitioner's bid was rejected on the ground of not submitting the GST clearance certificate.
Held
The Court held that the reason for disqualifying the petitioner's bid was not sustainable. It noted that Clause 6(IX) of the tender notice stated that a GST clearance certificate would have to be annexed to the bid documents, 'if necessary.' The Court referred to Section 22(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which makes registration mandatory only if the aggregate turnover exceeds ₹20,00,000. The Court found no evidence that the petitioner's annual aggregate turnover exceeded this threshold, especially considering his bid value was only ₹1,01,000. Therefore, it was not necessary for the petitioner to submit a GST clearance certificate. Consequently, the selection of respondent no. 4 was set aside, and the respondent authorities were directed to conduct a fresh selection process for the remaining period of the market settlement within one week of receiving a certified copy of the order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's bid for the settlement of the Balipara Weekly Market was justified on the ground of non-submission of a GST clearance certificate, considering the provisions of Section 22(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the terms of the tender notice. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the tender notice indicated the GST certificate was optional. He argued that as his annual aggregate turnover did not exceed ₹20,00,000, he was not liable for GST registration under Section 22(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, and therefore, the GST certificate was not mandatory. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondent BTC authorities argued, through their Standing Counsel, that the petitioner's bid was not accepted because he failed to submit his GST clearance certificate along with his bid, as stated in paragraph 6 of their affidavit-in-opposition.
Sections Cited
Section 22(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Date : 29.01.2024
Heard Mr. D. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. R. B. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, BTC, for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. No one
Page No.# 2/4 appears for the respondent No. 4 even though the order of the Lawazima Court dated 12.12.2023 states that the track consignment report available with the case records revealed that the notice in respect of the respondent No. 4 has been delivered to the addressee on 21.10.2023 and as such, service was complete in respect of the respondent No. 4. 2. By a Tender Notice dated 27.06.2023, the respondent no. 3 invited bids for settlement of a number of markets including a market named ‘Balipara Weekly Market’ [Wedne ay]. In response to the Tender Notice, 4 [four] nos. of bidders submitted their bids including the petitioner and the respondent no.
As per the comparative statement prepared by the respondent no. 3, the petitioner had submitted all the requisite documents/certificates, except GST certificate. The bid value of ₹ 1,01,000/-offered by the petitioner was the highest whereas the respondent no. 4 had offered a bid value of ₹ 65,200/-. However, the respondent BTC authorities settled the Market by an order of settlement dated 02.08.2023 in favour of the respondent no. 4 with effect from 01.07.2023, till the issue of a formal settlement order. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Tender Notice itself had indicated that the condition regarding submission of GST certificate was an optional one. It is further contended that as per the CGST Act, 2007, if anyone has an aggregate turnover in a Financial Year which exceeds ₹ 20,00,000/- in terms of taxable supply of goods or services or both, such person shall be liable to be registered under the CGST Act. As the petitioner’s annual aggregate turnover in a Financial Year in terms of taxable supply of goods or services or both did not exceed ₹ 20,00,000, he was not required to be registered under the CGST Rules and as such, the GST certificate was not submitted along with the bid. On that ground, the petitioner has challenged the rejection of his bid.
Page No.# 3/4
Mrs. R. B. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, BTC, submits that in terms of para 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 3, the petitioner’s bid had not been accepted by the authorities as he did not submit his GST clearance certificate along with his bid.
I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
The notice inviting tender dated 27.06.2023 provides at Clause 6(IX) that GST clearance certificate would have to be annexed to the bid documents, if necessary.
Section 22(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides that every supplier shall be liable to be registered under the GST Act in the State or Union territory, other than special category States, from where he makes a taxable supply of goods or services or both, if his aggregate turnover in a financial year exceeds twenty lakh rupees.
In the present case, there is nothing to show that the petitioner’s annual aggregate turnover in a financial year is above twenty lakh rupees. In fact, the petitioner’s bid value for the settlement of the market is only Rs. 1,01,000/-. As such, it was not necessary for the petitioner to include the GST clearance certificate in his bid/quotation.
In view of the above reasons, the reason for disqualifying the petitioner’s bid by the respondent authority is not sustainable. The petitioner’s bid/tender would have to be considered by the respondent authorities for settlement of the market along with the other eligible candidates. As his bid is Rs.1,01,000/- compared to the bid of the successful tenderer, i.e., the respondent No. 4, who had submitted a bid amount of Rs. 65,200/-, the settlement of the market would have to be done by the State respondent, which should in public interest.
Page No.# 4/4 Consequently, the selection of the respondent No. 4, vide letter dated 02.08.2023, as successful bidder is hereby set aside. The respondent authorities shall accordingly make a fresh selection of the successful tenderer and issue necessary order/s of settlement of the market for the remaining period of the term. The same should be done within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.