BharatTaxGST

M/S Saibhumi Construction Chalisgaon Through Partner Manoj Sahebrao Solanke vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

Original PDF →
WP/8683/2018HC BombayGSTCNR HCBM03027758201802 April 2019Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S V GANGAPURWALA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN M. DHAVALE3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Saibhumi Construction, challenged a tender allotment made by Respondent No. 2 (a government authority) to Respondent No. 4 for the Nhave Domne Water Supply Scheme. The petitioner argued that Respondent No. 4 was disqualified from bidding because it lacked a GST registration certificate at the time of submitting the tender. The petitioner also alleged that Respondent No. 4's bid was submitted on a political party's letterhead, and that the work order was issued under political pressure, citing a previous instance where Respondent No. 2 rejected a similar bid from Respondent No. 4 on this ground. Respondent No. 4 was declared the lowest bidder and awarded the work order on October 18, 2018. The work commenced on October 20, 2018, and recommenced on March 19, 2019, under police protection after a brief lull.

Held

The Court held that Respondent No. 4 possessed the GST registration certificate. The certificate was issued on July 28, 2018, with a validity period commencing from July 1, 2017. Therefore, as of the date of tender submission and work order allotment, Respondent No. 4 had the requisite GST registration. The Court also noted that Respondent No. 4 was indeed the lowest bidder, with a quoted amount of Rs. 1,00,75,337.57, compared to the petitioner's bid of Rs. 1,08,34,861. Regarding the contention of political pressure and the use of a political party's letterhead, the Court found that these claims had no bearing on the facts of the case and would not invalidate Respondent No. 4's bid even if assumed to be true. The Court concluded that no case for interference was made out. The writ petition was dismissed. No costs were awarded.

Key Issues

1. Whether Respondent No. 4 was disqualified from participating in the tender process for not possessing a GST registration certificate at the time of bid submission, thereby violating mandatory tender conditions? 2. Whether the allotment of the work order to Respondent No. 4 was vitiated by political pressure, as alleged by the petitioner, particularly in light of Respondent No. 4's bid being submitted on a political party's letterhead? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that Respondent No. 4 lacked the mandatory GST registration certificate, rendering its technical bid invalid and disqualifying it from the tender process. The petitioner also argued that Respondent No. 4's bid was submitted on a political party's letterhead, which had previously led to the rejection of another of Respondent No. 4's offers by Respondent No. 2. The petitioner claimed the current tender was awarded to Respondent No. 4 due to political pressure, disregarding mandatory conditions. Respondents' Arguments: Respondent No. 4, through its counsel, submitted that it had applied for GST registration on July 1, 2017, and was issued a registration certificate on July 28, 2018, which was valid from July 1, 2017. Respondent No. 2 and 3's counsel stated that Respondent No. 4 was the lowest bidder. They did not explicitly address the political letterhead argument but presented the GST certificate as proof of compliance.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

(1) 910­wp­8683­2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 910 WRIT PETITION NO.8683 OF 2018 M/S SAIBHUMI CONSTRUCTION CHALISGAON THROUGH PARTNER MANOJ SAHEBRAO SOLANKE ..PETITIONER VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ..RESPONDENTS … Mr.   P.   N.   Nagargoje   h/f   Mr.   Dhananjay   B.   Thoke, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for Respondents­State. Mr.   Maheshkumar   S.   Sonawane,   Advocate   for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr.   Umesh   Gite   h/f   Mr.   Mahesh   S.   Deshmukh, Advocates for Respondent No.4. …

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & A. M. DHAVALE, JJ. DATED : 02nd APRIL, 2019. PER COURT:­

1.

The   tender   allotted   in   favour   of respondent   no.4   is   assailed   in   the   present petition.     The   petitioner,   respondent   no.4   and others participated in the tender process pursuant to the E­Tender flouted by respondent no.2 for work on   Nhave   Domne   Water   Supply   Scheme   at   Taluka Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon.  Respondent no.4 was found to be the lowest bidder.  He was allotted the work order on 18.10.2018. 2. The   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner submits that respondent no.4 did not possess the GST   registration   certificate,   as   such   he   was disqualified   from   bidding   in   the   tender.     His technical bid ought not to have been opened.  The (2) 910­wp­8683­2018 respondent   no.4   had   filled   in   the   tender   on   the letter head of the political party.  Another offer of the respondent no.4 for other work was rejected by respondent no.2 on the ground that the offer is submitted on the letter head of political party. However,   respondent   no.2   in   the   present   tender process allotted the work order to respondent no.4 under political pressure.  The mandatory conditions are   not   followed.     The   respondent   no.4   being ineligible could not have been considered in the bidding process.

4.

Mr.   Sonawane,   learned   counsel   for respondent nos.2 and 3 submits that respondent no.4 had applied for registration under GST on 1.07.2017 and   was   also   issued   with   the   registration certificate on 28.07.2018. The period of validity of the said certificate is from 1.07.2017. 5. We   have   considered   the   submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

6.

The   main   ground   of   challenge   to   the acceptance of the tender of respondent no.4 is that respondent no.4 did not possess with him the GST certificate.     The   GST   certificate   is   issued   in favour of the petitioner and the same is annexed with affidavit­in­reply filed by respondent no.

2.

The   date   of   issue   of   certificate   is   28.07.2018. The period of validity is from 01.07.2017 onwards. As   on   the   date   of   filling   in   the   tender   and (3) 910­wp­8683­2018 allotment   of   work   order   the   respondent   no.4 possessed the GST registration certificate.

7.

It has been sworn on oath by respondent nos.2 and 3 that the respondent no.4 was the lowest bid. The   petitioner   had   quoted   price   of Rs.1,08,34,861/­.   One Siddhi Vinayak Traders had quoted   the   amount   of   Rs.1,12,68,255.80/­   and respondent   no.4   had   quoted   an   amount   of Rs.1,00,75,337.57/­.   The respondent no.4 was the lowest.   The contention of the petitioner that it was upon the political pressure does not have any bearing from the facts of the case.  Just even if it   is   assumed   that,   the   petitioner   had   used   the letter   head   of   political   party   that   would   not invalidate the bid of respondent no.4. 8. It is submitted that the work order was issued to respondent no.4 and respondent no.4 has commenced work from 20.10.2018. For a brief period there was lull and again under police protection work has recommenced from 19.03.2019. 9. Considering   the   above,   no   case   for interference   is   made   out.     Writ   petition   is dismissed.  No costs. (A. M. DHAVALE)             (S. V. GANGAPURWALA) JUDGE JUDGE Devendra/April­19

Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.