M/S Vansh Advertisement Bhatapara vs. State Of Chhattisgarh
Held
The Court considered the submissions of both parties and noted the admitted fact that the petitioner had not submitted the GST Certificate. Consequently, the Municipal Council, Bhatapara, rejected the petitioner's tender via an order dated January 9, 2023. The Court also acknowledged that a fresh tender had already been issued. Based on these admitted facts, the Court found no good ground to interfere with the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. The Court did not explicitly decide on the petitioner's claim of having started work, as the primary ground for dismissal was the non-submission of the GST certificate.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Vansh Advertisement Bhatapara, participated in a tender invited by Municipal Council Bhatapara (Respondent No. 3) on September 27, 2022, for the installation of advertisement boards. The petitioner's tender was accepted, and they commenced work. However, on January 9, 2023, the President In Council of the Municipal Council Bhatapara (Respondent No. 4) cancelled the tender. The stated reason for cancellation was the petitioner's failure to submit its GST registration. The petitioner contends they had started work, while the respondents assert the petitioner did not submit the GST certificate and had not commenced work. A fresh tender has since been issued.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's tender by Respondent No. 4 on January 9, 2023, on the ground of non-submission of GST registration, is arbitrary and illegal, particularly when the petitioner claims to have commenced work? (Question of law and fact, potentially relating to tender conditions and contractual obligations). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argues that the cancellation was sudden and unjustified, especially as they had already started working on the project. They seek to quash the cancellation order. Respondents' contention: Respondents No. 3 and 4 argue that the cancellation was justified because the petitioner failed to submit its GST certificate, which is a mandatory requirement. They also dispute the petitioner's claim of having started work and state that a new tender has been floated.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3205 of 2023 M/s Vansh Advertisement Bhatapara Through Proprietor Mahendra Kumar Sen, Aged About 27 Years Son Of Santosh Kumar Sen R/o Munshi Ismile Ward Bhatapara Tahsil Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Urban Administration Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.)
The Collector District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.)
Municipal Council Bhatapara Through Chief Municipal Officer Tahsil Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
President In Council Municipal Council Bhatapara Through The President Tahsil Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri
Ramesh Sinha,
Chief Justice
Hon'ble
Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
, Judge
Order
on Board
Per
Ramesh Sinha
, Chief Justice
20 .07
.
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 Chhattisgarh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.