Nityananda Pradhan vs. State Of Odisha
Held
The Court found substance in the submission of the learned State Counsel. The Court held that there was no merit in the writ petition. The reasoning appears to be based on the State's assertion that the discrepancies highlighted by the petitioner were not present for the financial year 2020-21. The ratio decidendi is that if the grounds for rejection in previous years are rectified and the current application meets the required criteria, the selection cannot be deemed illegal. The Court did not provide specific details on the provisions or authorities relied upon, other than the general context of selection of registered suppliers. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition.
Facts
The petitioner challenged the approval of opposite party no. 5, Maheswar Rout, as a registered supplier for essential items to the Special Jail, Bhubaneswar for the financial year 2020-21. The petitioner argued that Maheswar Rout's previous applications for approved supplier status in 2018-19 and 2019-20 were rejected due to a mismatch in his name spelling between his GST Certificate and Solvency Certificate, and because he was a new entrant with no past experience. The petitioner contended that these discrepancies persisted, making his current selection illegal. The State, representing the revenue, countered that for the current financial year, there was no such mismatch between the Solvency Certificate and the GST Certificate submitted by opposite party no. 5.
Key Issues
1. Whether the selection of opposite party no. 5 as an approved supplier for the financial year 2020-21 is illegal, considering alleged persistent discrepancies in his documentation, contrary to the provisions governing the selection of registered suppliers. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the same discrepancies in the spelling of Maheswar Rout's name between his GST Certificate and Solvency Certificate, which led to the rejection of his applications in previous years, were still present. Therefore, his selection for the current financial year was illegal and warranted interference by the Court. Revenue's Contention: The State contended that for the current financial year, there was no mismatch between the Solvency Certificate and the GST Certificate submitted by opposite party no. 5. They argued that the writ petition lacked merit.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the parties through Video Conferencing mode.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the action of the opposite parties in approving the name of opposite party no.5-Maheswar Rout, as the registered supplier for supplying essential items to the Special Jail, Bhubaneswar for the financial year 2020-21. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that opposite party no.5- Maheswar Rout has applied for inclusion of his name in the list of approved suppliers in the year 2018- 19 and 2019-20. The application submitted by opposite party no.5 was rejected due to mismatch in the spelling of his name in the GST Certificate as well as the Solvency Certificate and further observing that he was a new entrant and had no past experience. In the above premises, Sri S.M.Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that opposite party no.5 ought to have been disqualified this year as well because tho
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.