2024 (2) TMI 943 - HC - GST

Requirement of submission of GST certificate, which was valid at the time of submission of his tender documents, in terms of Clause 8(f) of the Tender Notice, submitted or not - HELD THAT - Section 22 of the Central GST Act, 2017 provides that every supplier shall be registered under this Act in the State or Union territory, other than special category States, from where he makes a taxable supply of goods or services or both, if his aggregate turnover in a financial year exceeds twenty lakhs rupees. Provided that where such person makes taxable supplies of goods or services or both from any of the special category States, he shall be liable to be registered if his aggregate turnover in a financial year exceeds ten lakhs rupees. Section 23 provides the class of persons, who are not liable for registration under the Central GST Act, 2017 - As Assam is a special category State under the Central GST Act, 2017, the petitioner and the respondent No.7 are required to submit valid GST Certificates, as their bid value is above 10 lakh rupees. Whether the respondent No.7 had submitted a valid GST Certificate along with his bid/quotation? - HELD THAT - The GST Certificate which is a part of the tender documents shows that GST Certificate of the respondent No.7 had been issued on 04.06.2023. The issuance of the GST certificate could not have been done prior to registration. One of the issues that has also cropped up and would have to be decided is, whether a person can have two GST registration numbers. Due to the disputed questions of facts involved in the present case, this Court is of the view that the said issue would have to be decided by the respondents No. 2 and 6. The respondents No. 2 and 6 are directed to make an inquiry into the validity of the GST Certificate submitted by the respondent No.7 along with his tender documents. If it is found upon inquiry that the respondent 7 had submitted an invalid or fabricated GST Certificate, the settlement of the market with the respondent No.7 should be set aside by cancelling the Settlement Order dated 07.07.2023. The State respondents should thereafter take immediate steps to settle the market with the second highest bidder. The respondents No. 2 and 6 shall make their inquiry and take a decision on the same within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of GST Clearance Certificate submitted by respondent No. 7.
2. Compliance with Clause 8(f) of the Tender Notice regarding GST Certificate submission.
3. Determination of whether a person can have two GST registration numbers.

Summary:

Validity of GST Clearance Certificate submitted by respondent No. 7:
The petitioner contended that respondent No. 7 submitted a fake GST Clearance Certificate, which had been canceled effective from 19.02.2021. The petitioner argued that this invalid certificate should disqualify respondent No. 7's bid, making the petitioner, as the second-highest bidder, eligible for the market settlement. The learned Standing Counsel for the Finance and Taxation Department confirmed the cancellation of GSTIN: 18AVRPB0604M1ZI for respondent No. 7, effective from 19.02.2021. However, the original bid documents showed a different GST Certificate (GSTIN: 18AVRPB0604M2ZH) issued on 04.06.2023, which was valid.

Compliance with Clause 8(f) of the Tender Notice regarding GST Certificate submission:
Clause 8(f) required submission of a "GST certificate, if applicable." The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax confirmed that the GSTIN: 18AVRPB0604M2ZH for respondent No. 7 was valid from 04.08.2023. However, the GST Certificate in the tender documents showed issuance on 04.06.2023. The court found no infirmity in the State respondents' decision to accept the GST Certificate submitted by respondent No. 7, subject to it not being fabricated.

Determination of whether a person can have two GST registration numbers:
The court noted discrepancies in the GSTIN numbers and dates related to respondent No. 7's GST Certificates. The court directed respondents No. 2 and 6 to inquire into the validity of the GST Certificate submitted by respondent No. 7. If found invalid or fabricated, the market settlement with respondent No. 7 should be canceled, and the market should be settled with the second-highest bidder. The respondents were instructed to complete the inquiry within one month and provide an opportunity for hearing to the parties involved.

Conclusion:
The court disposed of the writ petition, directing an inquiry into the validity of respondent No. 7's GST Certificate and maintaining the interim order dated 27.09.2023 until a decision is made.