9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 669 - HC - GSTUniform GST rate applicable to all bidders for the services, specified in the tender notice or not - hiring of services for Real Time Production Monitoring and Analysis (RTPM) Project under DRIVE Initiative - HELD THAT - 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 in furtherance to the LOI dated 01.07.2022 and the respondent no. 3 is accordingly directed not to further advance with the work which is the subject matter of this writ petition 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.
Issues: Challenge to evaluation mechanism in a tender due to diverse GST rates quoted by bidders.
In this case, the petitioner challenged a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) issued by Oil India Limited regarding hiring services for Real Time Production Monitoring and Analysis Project. The main grievance was the lack of specification of a uniform GST rate for all bidders, leading to different GST rates being quoted by the parties. The petitioner argued that considering diverse GST rates during evaluation would compromise the concept of competitive bids. The petitioner's bid was approximately Rs. 19.65 Crores with an 18% GST rate, while the respondent's bid was around Rs. 21.76 Crores with a 5% GST rate. The petitioner contended that uniformity in GST rates was essential for fair evaluation. The court issued a Notice of Motion returnable in four weeks. During the hearing, the petitioner's Senior Counsel highlighted the substantial difference of about Rs. 2.11 Crores between the petitioner's bid and the respondent's bid, emphasizing the importance of fair evaluation in a project involving a significant amount of public money. On the other hand, the Oil India Limited's Senior Counsel argued that a Letter of Intent had already been issued, and work had commenced, questioning the maintainability of the writ petition. The respondent no. 3's Senior Counsel opposed an interim order, stating that the work order had been issued, and mobilization was complete, pointing out that any ambiguities should have been clarified during the pre-bid meeting. After considering the arguments and balancing the interests involved, the court decided to issue an interim order. It directed Oil India Limited not to proceed with further actions based on the Letter of Intent and instructed the respondent no. 3 to halt work related to the project until the next hearing date. The court emphasized the importance of justice and public interest in reaching this decision. Due to the public interest nature of the work, the court aimed to dispose of the writ petition promptly and directed Oil India Limited to produce the relevant records on the returnable date. The case was listed for a hearing after four weeks.
|
