Janakalyana Parisada, Mayurbhanj vs. State Of Odisha

Mr. Panda, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, prayer of his client is for quashing of notice inviting tender (NIT) dated 19th January, 2024. Drawing attention to clause-2.6 on validity of proposals he submits, the tender was opened beyond 180 days. Without prejudice he submits further, his client was disqualified on reason given that ‘GST was cancelled suo moto’. A valid GST registration number was submitted by his client on the bid. As such, the reason is misconceived. He seeks interference.

Mrs. Pattanayak, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, petitioner was disqualified on finding that his registration with the tax authority stood cancelled. As such he became ineligible to remain in consideration for award of the work under tender.

Mr. Rath, learned advocate appears on behalf of added opposite party no.

He submits, his client was successful bidder and there has been agreement executed on award of the work to him.

Clause 2.6 is reproduced below.

On query made Mr. Panda submits, consent was sought by the employer for extension of the period. It could not have been extended. Fresh NIT ought to have been issued. Mr. Rath submits, extension of the period of validity of proposals

We accept submission made on behalf of opposite party no.3 that validity of a proposal can be extended by the proposer. So far as cancellation of revenue registration of petitioner is concerned, it appears the registration was cancelled prior to 20th September, 2024. The cancellation is on reason given by FORM GST REG-17, disclosed by opposite party no.3 in his counter. We understand phrase ‘suo moto’ used in letter dated 20th September, 2024, giving information including disqualification of petitioner to be that his registration certificate was cancelled by the taxing authority. It being one of the arms of State, the phrase was used.

We do not find merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed.