Sher Singh vs. State Of Punjab And Ors
Held
The Court held that Clause 8(v) of the Standard Bidding Document, which mandated the submission of the last filed GST return along with the GST number, was an essential term of the contract. The Court found that the petitioner had admittedly not complied with this condition. Furthermore, the Court noted that the respondents had provided factual information, which was not rebutted by the petitioner, indicating that respondent No. 5 had uploaded his GST number in his technical bid. Consequently, the Court concluded that the plea of discrimination did not survive and there was no infirmity in the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid. The petition was dismissed.
Facts
The petitioner, Sher Singh, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of his bid for a parking contract at Sabzi Mandi, Gurdaspur, which was awarded to respondent No. 5. The petitioner's technical bid was rejected for not furnishing a GST number. The petitioner alleged discrimination, claiming respondent No. 5 also did not furnish a GST number but was awarded the contract despite a higher bid. The petitioner argued that if the GST number condition was relaxed, it should have been applied universally. The respondents, through an order dated 11.05.2018, rejected the petitioner's representation, stating that respondent No. 5 had indeed uploaded his GST number in his technical bid.
Key Issues
1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid for non-furnishing of GST number, when Clause 8(v) of the Standard Bidding Document required submission of the last filed GST return along with the GST number, was legally sustainable? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that the rejection was discriminatory as respondent No. 5, who also allegedly did not furnish a GST number, was awarded the contract. The petitioner argued that any relaxation of the GST number condition should have been applied uniformly to all bidders. Revenue/State's argument: The respondents argued that Clause 8(v) of the Standard Bidding Document was an essential term and that the petitioner admittedly failed to comply with it. They further contended, based on a specific order, that respondent No. 5 had uploaded his GST number, thus refuting the claim of discrimination.
Sections Cited
Clause 8(v)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 31.05.2018 Sher Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present:- Mr. S.K.Choudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. Tender inquiry for award of contract for parking at Sabzi Mandi under Market Committee, Gurdaspur was floated in the month of March, 2018. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner raising a grievance that in spite of the bid submitted by the petitioner being the most competitive yet the same has not been accepted and the tender has been allotted in favour of respondent No.
Learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the technical bid of the petitioner in response to the tender inquiry has been rejected on the ground that GST number had not been furnished. Plea of discrimination has been raised by contending that even respondent No.5 had not furnished the GST number and in spite of his bid being higher than the one submitted by t
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 Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.