M/S Green Gold Agro Environment Alliance vs. The State Of Ap And 4 Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The appellant, M/s Green Gold Agro Environment Alliance, filed an intra-court appeal against a judgment of the learned Single Judge that dismissed its writ petition. The appellant's bid for a tender was rejected by the respondent authorities for non-submission of up-to-date GST returns. The appellant had opted to file GST returns on a quarterly basis as per Circular No. 143/13/2020-GST dated 10.11.2020, which meant it could not furnish monthly GST returns or up-to-date returns by the tender's last date. The appellant contended that its bid should not have been rejected on this technical ground, especially since it had submitted quarterly returns. The respondents supported the impugned judgment.
Held
The Court held that the conditions prescribed in the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) required the submission of the latest GST Returns. The appellant candidly admitted that due to opting for quarterly GST filing, it was unable to submit GST returns as per the tender conditions by the last date of bid submission. The Court agreed with the learned Single Judge's observation that while no fault could be attributed to the petitioner for opting for quarterly GST payment, the requirement was to have GST cleared for the last quarter by the bid submission deadline. The GSTR-3B return showed an acknowledgment date of 19.07.2022, which was after the last date for opening of bid documents. The Court reiterated the settled legal position that bidders must be qualified at the time of tender publication or before the last bid submission date, and any subsequent qualification is not considered. Therefore, the rejection of the bid as technically non-responsive was upheld, and no interference was warranted. The appeal was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the rejection of the appellant's bid for non-submission of up-to-date GST returns, when the appellant had opted for quarterly filing under Circular No. 143/13/2020-GST, is legally sustainable? Petitioner's Arguments: The appellant argued that its choice to file GST returns quarterly, as permitted by the Government of India's Circular No. 143/13/2020-GST, made it impossible to submit monthly or up-to-date GST returns by the tender's deadline. Therefore, the rejection of its bid on this technicality was erroneous, and the authorities should not have rejected its bid. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned counsels for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and order. They contended that compliance with tender conditions, including the submission of GST returns by the last date for submission, is mandatory. The judgment of the learned Single Judge, which upheld the rejection, was considered correct.
Sections Cited
Section 129
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Date : 15.09.2022
Heard Mr. Tony Pertin, learned counsel appearing for the writ appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh, appearing for the State respondents as well as Mr. Tapi Omo, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 5/private respondent. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29.08.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 245/2022, the original petitioner has preferred this intra-court appeal. Mr. Tony Pertin, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that as per the scheme of filing GST return, more particularly, as per the Circular No. 143/13/2020- GST dated 10.11.2020, issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, GST Policy Wing, the writ appellant/original petitioner opted for filing Quarterly Return instead of filing Monthly Return and, hence the appellant/original petitioner could not submit up- to-date GST return along with the bid documents. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that as the appellant had opted for filing Quarterly
Page No.# 3/5 Return as per the scheme under the aforesaid Circular, the appellant was not in a position to furnish or produce Monthly GST Return. Learned counsel also contended that in view of the scheme enunciated by the Circular dated 10.11.2022, which the appellant/original petitioner adopted, the conditions of the tender to file Monthly Return or filing up-to-date Return could not be adhered to as the Return would be available with the appellant on every three months. With the aforesaid grounds the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge took an erroneous view only because the appellant could not submit GST Returns as per the conditions of tender. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the bid submitted by the appellant/original petitioner should not have been rejected by the respondent authorities. As against this, learned counsels appearing for the respective respondents have supported the impugned judgment and order. No further arguments, submissions or contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the parties. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is a matter of fact that as per the conditions of the tender in question it was incumbent on the part of the tenderer to submit necessary documents showing GST Return clearance. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions, such compliance has to be latest by the last date of submitting the tender documents. Learned counsel for the appellant has candidly submitted that because of the fact that the appellant adopted the scheme of filing the GST Return quarterly, it was not in a position to submit the GST Returns as per the conditions of the tender and merely on such technical grounds the bid of the appellant has not been accepted although the appellant/original petitioner submitted Quarterly Returns as per the aforesaid Circular. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would
Page No.# 4/5 be apt to refer to the discussions in paragraphs 11 to 14 of the impugned judgment, which are as under:
“11. After hearing the parties and on perusal of materials on record, it transpires that the point on which the bid of the petitioner has been rejected is the non submission of the up to date GST returns. Though, no fault can be attributed to the petitioner for being an optee to pay GST on quarterly basis than on a monthly basis, the requirement was that on the last date of filing of the bid documents, whether his GST was cleared for the last quarter.
Mr. Jamoh, learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that though the GST was submitted at the earlier point of time, the document was made available after the last date of opening of the bid documents. The aforesaid submission is however, not liable to be accepted in view of the fact that the return of the form GSTR-3B shows the date of acknowledgment as 19.07.2022, which is after the last date of opening of the bid documents.
It is a settled position of law that the bidder has to be qualified at the time of the publication of the tender notice and atleast before the last date of submission of such bids and any qualification obtained thereafter shall not be taken into consideration, as the same would open a flood gate.
In the instant case, admittedly, the form reveals that the GST for the last quarter was submitted only on 19.07.2022 and therefore, as on the last date opening of the bids, the petitioner was not in possession of the said certificate. Under these circumstances, this Court is unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that rejection
Page No.# 5/5 of the bid of the petitioner as being technically nonresponsive requires any interference.” We are in agreement with the observations made by the learned Single Judge. The conditions prescribed in the NIT required submission of latest GST Returns, which the appellant could not fulfil. In the light of the aforesaid, no exemption can be granted to the appellant by this Court in exercise of its juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We do not find any error in the impugned judgment and order, which requires interference by this court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE 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.