9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 559 - HC - GSTRejection of petitioner's bid (highest bidder) - contract awarded to the second highest bidder - rejection on the ground that material facts were suppressed - total figure mentioned was ₹ 10982.01, while it was claimed to be ₹ 10982.27 - small variation in the calculation of service tax amount due to rounding off - HELD THAT - Reliance placed on Section 170 of the CGST Act, 2017 at this stage when the bidder is supposed to quote the price, is misconceived. Such exercise of rounding off the tax figure will be at a subsequent stage when the actual filing of returns and payment of tax arises and not at an interim stage particularly not at the stage where the price has to be quoted while submitting the bid. The Court finds no error having been committed by the Tender Inviting Authority in rejecting the Petitioner's prayer - Petition dimsissed.
Issues:
Challenge to rejection of bid by Tendering Inviting Authority based on rounding off tax figure under CGST Act, 2017. Analysis: The Petitioner challenged the decision of the Tendering Inviting Authority to reject their bid and award the contract to the second highest bidder. The rejection was based on the Petitioner's rounding off of the tax figure, which the Authority considered as a suppression of material fact. The Authority shortlisted two Service Providers out of 16 bidders, and the Petitioner's bid was rejected due to the alleged discrepancy in the tax amount mentioned. The Petitioner relied on Section 170 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, which allows rounding off of tax amounts to the nearest rupee. However, the Court dismissed this argument, stating that the exercise of rounding off the tax figure should occur at a later stage when actual filing of returns and payment of tax is due, not during the bid submission process. The Court found no error in the decision of the Tender Inviting Authority to reject the Petitioner's bid based on the tax figure discrepancy. The Court emphasized that the bidding stage is not the appropriate time to apply the rounding off provision under the CGST Act, as it should be done during the actual payment of tax. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the rejection of the Petitioner's bid. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to bid requirements and providing accurate information during the bidding process to avoid disqualification based on technicalities.
|
