M/S Patelputra Agro Farm PVT LTD vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Patelpurta Agro Farm, participated in tenders invited by the Fisheries Department of the State of Uttarakhand for granting fishing licenses in various reservoirs. The petitioner's technical bids were rejected by the Technical Evaluation Committee. The stated reasons for rejection included the balance sheet/financial statement not containing the signatures of the auditor and proprietor, the work experience certificate not being issued directly for the firm, and the Unique Document Identification Number (UDIN) not being generated on the balance sheet. The petitioner filed three writ petitions challenging the rejection of its technical bids for three different tenders. The respondents justified the rejection, and the Court focused on the ground related to the absence of UDIN on the balance sheet.

Held

The Court held that the rejection of the petitioner's technical bids was justified. The Tender Document required bidders to provide audited balance sheets and profit and loss account statements, along with a Chartered Accountant's certificate, to establish a minimum average turnover of Rs. 5.00 Crores over the preceding three years. The Court noted that the Technical Evaluation Committee is entitled to require authenticated documents that can be verified from its office, without having to gather information from external departments like the Income Tax Department. The notification dated 02.08.2019 clearly mandates the generation of UDIN for Tax Audit Reports to curb malpractices and ensure authenticity. Since the Tax Audit Reports submitted by the petitioner did not bear the UDIN, the Technical Evaluation Committee was justified in not relying on them, as their authenticity could not be verified. Therefore, the rejection of the technical bids on this ground was deemed completely justified, and the writ petitions were dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's technical bids was justified on the ground that the Tax Audit Reports, which included balance sheets and profit and loss accounts, did not bear the Unique Document Identification Number (UDIN), thereby violating Clause 6(iv) of the Tender Document, which required audited balance sheets and profit and loss accounts, and a Chartered Accountant's certificate for an average turnover of Rs. 5.00 Crores over three years. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that it had sufficiently complied with Clause 6(iv) by submitting Tax Audit Reports in Forms 3CB and 3CD, which were signed by the petitioner's Director and the Chartered Accountant, and also contained the balance sheets and profit and loss accounts for the relevant periods. The petitioner contended that the absence of UDIN on these reports did not render them doubtful. Respondents' contention: The respondents relied on a notification dated 02.08.2019 issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), which made the generation of UDIN mandatory for all GST and Tax Audit Reports from 1st April, 2019. They argued that the Technical Evaluation Committee was entitled to require duly authenticated documents for verification and that the absence of UDIN prevented such verification.