2010 (1) TMI 1137 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Non-submission of the sales tax clearance certificate - the petitioner had pledged the earnest money in favour of the IGP instead of Inspector General of Prisons - Held that - Non-consideration of the petitioner s tender on the ground that the earnest money has not been pledged appropriately is not justified and accordingly I find every reason to declare that non-consideration of the petitioner s tender by the purchase Board on November 17, 2009 was illegal and cannot be sustained in law. Selection of a party to execute a supply work through tender process would normally require selection of the party who has quoted the lowest price and in this case the petitioner s quotation was lower than respondent No. 4 to whom the work order was issued. Considering the lower quotation of the petitioner, he has a better right in my view to secure the contract in question and under such circumstances the work order granted in favour of respondent No. 4 is declared to be illegal. W.P. allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of rejection of petitioner's tender due to non-submission of sales tax clearance certificate and incorrect pledging of earnest money.
2. Interpretation of clauses 6 and 7(a) of the tender notice.
3. Requirement of sales tax clearance certificate versus VAT clearance certificate.
4. Consideration of lowest price in awarding the contract.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the Purchase Committee's decision to reject their tender based on the non-submission of a sales tax clearance certificate and incorrect pledging of earnest money. The petitioner argued that the pledging in favor of "I.G. Prisons, Assam" instead of "Inspector General of Prisons" should not disqualify them, as the documents were endorsed correctly. The court agreed that the rejection on this ground was unjustified.

2. Clauses 6 and 7(a) of the tender notice were examined. The court found that there was no requirement to furnish a VAT clearance certificate as stipulated in clause 7(a). The rejection of the petitioner's tender for not providing a sales tax clearance certificate when none of the tenderers had submitted one was deemed unjustified.

3. The debate over sales tax clearance certificate versus VAT clearance certificate arose. The court clarified that the petitioner could not be considered an invalid tenderer for failing to furnish a VAT clearance certificate when it was not specified in the tender notice. The rejection of the petitioner's tender on this ground was deemed unjustified.

4. The judgment highlighted that in the selection process, the party quoting the lowest price should normally be chosen. As the petitioner's quotation was lower than the selected respondent, the court declared the award of the contract to be illegal. The respondent-authorities were directed to reconsider the petitioner's offer and take necessary steps accordingly.

In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, declaring the rejection of the petitioner's tender as illegal and directing the authorities to reconsider the offer. The judgment emphasized the importance of correct interpretation of tender clauses and fair consideration of all relevant factors, including the lowest price in awarding contracts.