2020 (12) TMI 406 - HC - GST

Rejection of Bids - petitioner submitted his bid along with all relevant documents, but the bid of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted the GST Registration Certificate in his name along with the bid documents - HELD THAT - The financial bid has not been opened and the opposite parties have not taken any final decision and have not executed any agreement, we require the Commissioner- cum-Secretary, Tourism Department, Odisha, Bhubaneswar-opposite party no.1 to examine grievance of the petitioner and consider the validity of the decision of the Committee in disqualifying the bid of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ADANI GAS LIMITED VERSUS PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS REGULATORY BOARD AND ORS. 2020 (2) TMI 1391 - SUPREME COURT in view of the fact that the case of the petitioner comes under Eligibility Condition-B of Table-6 of the RFP and that the RFP conditions do not specifically require the bidders to submit GST Registration Certificate along with bid documents and take a decision on the same by passing a speaking order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as bidder likely to be affected thereby, before execution and signing of the agreement. The petitioner shall be requested to submit such representation along with a copy of this order within seven days.

Summary

Issues:
- Disqualification of bid due to lack of GST Registration Certificate submission.
- Interpretation of eligibility conditions in Request for Proposal (RFP).
- Compliance with conditions for leasing and management of tourism properties.
- Legal implications of bid disqualification and fairness in evaluation process.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the disqualification of a bid based on the absence of the GST Registration Certificate submission by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the RFP did not explicitly require new bidders without prior hospitality industry experience to submit the GST registration in advance. The petitioner submitted a Proof of Net-worth Certificate along with the bid, emphasizing his financial capability. The petitioner argued that the highest upfront price quoted by him should be considered, as awarding the contract to a bidder with a lower price might cause loss to the state exchequer.

Regarding the interpretation of eligibility conditions in the RFP, the petitioner's counsel referenced various clauses to support the argument that GST registration submission was not a prerequisite at the bidding stage. The petitioner's reliance on a Supreme Court decision highlighted the importance of fairness and legality in bid evaluation processes, emphasizing the need for transparency and adherence to notified criteria.

The judgment also delves into the compliance requirements for leasing and managing tourism properties, emphasizing the lessee's responsibility to pay taxes, including GST, in a timely manner as part of the lease conditions. The State's advocate argued that the petitioner's bid was rightfully disqualified as the submission of the GST Registration Certificate was mandatory along with other bid documents, as indicated in the RFP. The State emphasized that all qualified bidders had submitted the GST Registration Certificate, and treating the petitioner differently would be unfair.

In conclusion, the Court directed the Tourism Department to review the petitioner's grievance and the decision to disqualify the bid in light of the Supreme Court's decision. The Department was instructed to provide an opportunity for the petitioner to present his case before finalizing any agreement. The petitioner was given seven days to submit a representation, considering the ongoing COVID-19 restrictions. The judgment aimed to ensure a fair and transparent evaluation process in line with the RFP's conditions and legal principles.