2022 (10) TMI 176 - HC - GST

Un-uniform rate of GST - hiring of services for connected Worker Project under DRIVE Initiative, Assam - tender notice fails to specify a uniform GST rate applicable to all bidders for the services - HELD THAT - After serious consideration of the rival submissions and on balancing the equities, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice as well as public interest would be served if an interim order is passed at this stage. Accordingly, it is provided that no further action be taken by the respondent nos. 1 2 OIL after declaration of the respondent no. 3 as the L-1 till the returnable date. Since, the work is of public interest, an endeavor would be made to dispose of the writ petition on the returnable date, on which date, the learned counsel representing the OIL is directed to produce the records. List this case after 4(four) weeks.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to evaluation mechanism in a bid due to diverse GST rates quoted by bidders.

In this judgment, the High Court of Gauhati addressed a writ petition challenging the evaluation mechanism in a bid issued by Oil India Limited. The petitioner raised concerns about the lack of specification of a uniform GST rate for all bidders, leading to diverse GST rates being quoted by parties. The petitioner argued that considering these diverse GST rates during evaluation would compromise the integrity of competitive bidding. The petitioner's bid included a GST rate of 18%, while the respondent's bid had a GST rate of 12%. The court noted the significant difference in bid amounts due to varying GST rates. The court issued a notice returnable in four weeks to further examine the matter.

During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel emphasized the substantial public funds involved in the project and highlighted the discrepancy in bids due to different GST rates. On the other hand, the Oil India Limited's counsel contended that the writ petition was not maintainable and mentioned that the Letter of Intent was nearly ready for issuance. The respondent no. 3's counsel argued that any ambiguity should have been clarified during the pre-bid meeting and that the petitioner was estopped from raising the issue post bid evaluation. Both parties cited relevant case laws to support their arguments.

After considering the submissions and balancing the interests involved, the court decided to grant an interim order to prevent further action by Oil India Limited after declaring the respondent no. 3 as the L-1 bidder until the next hearing date. The court emphasized the importance of justice and public interest in making this decision. Given the public interest nature of the project, the court aimed to expedite the disposal of the writ petition on the next hearing date, directing the OIL counsel to produce relevant records. The case was listed for the next hearing after four weeks.