Lata Mukherjee vs. Indian Institute Of Science Education And Research And Others

Held

The Court held that the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid was justified. The petitioner had unequivocally accepted all terms and conditions of the tender, including the mandatory requirement of furnishing a GST number, through her letter of undertaking and affidavit. Therefore, she could not subsequently argue that she was not required to furnish it. The Court also rejected her claim of exemption from obtaining a GST number, citing Notification No. 10/2019-Central Tax, dated March 7, 2019, which indicated no such exemption was applicable to her business of supplying ice-cream. Regarding the arguments about respondent No. 2's bid, the Court found that the experience requirement was not mandatory, and non-submission of an experience certificate did not disentitle him. The Court noted that respondent No. 2 fulfilled all mandatory requirements and was the sole technically compliant tenderer. The petitioner's offer of a higher rent was deemed inconsequential as she was technically non-compliant. The Court dismissed the petition as bereft of merit.

Facts

The petitioner, Lata Mukherjee, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of her technical bid for allotment of shops at the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Mohali. The rejection was based on her failure to furnish a Goods and Services Tax (GST) number with her bid, as required by the E-Tender Notice dated March 20, 2021. The petitioner contended that she was exempted from obtaining a GST number and that the authorities' insistence was illegal. She also argued that respondent No. 2's GST number was incorrect and that her bid, offering a higher rent, should have been considered. The petitioner's application for a GST number was previously rejected because her shop's lease was expiring. The respondents argued that the petitioner accepted all tender conditions, including the GST number requirement, and failed to submit it, leaving the relevant column blank in her bid.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid for non-furnishing of the GST number was illegal, considering her claim of exemption and reliance on Rule 11 of the CGST Rules, 2017. 2. Whether respondent No. 2's bid, which included a GST number, should have been accepted, despite the petitioner's allegations of an incorrect GST number and the non-submission of a mandatory experience certificate. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the rejection was illegal as she was exempted from obtaining a GST number and that the condition requiring it should be quashed. She relied on Rule 11 of the CGST Rules, 2017, to argue that she could not obtain a GST number under the law given her circumstances. She also claimed respondent No. 2's GST number was incorrect and that his bid was accepted despite not submitting a mandatory experience certificate, while her bid offering higher rent was rejected. Respondents' arguments: Respondent No. 1 argued that the petitioner had not assailed the condition requiring the GST number and had undertaken to abide by all tender conditions, thus she could not object now. They pointed out that the GST number column in her bid was left blank, whereas respondent No. 2 submitted his GST number. They also contended that the experience requirement was not mandatory and that respondent No. 2 fulfilled all mandatory requirements.