2025 (1) TMI 716 - HC - GST

Cancellation of tender - fresh NIT has been issued prior to the cancellation of the allotment in his favor - HELD THAT - The NIT was issued by the respondents on 06.06.2023 for allotment of 11 shops, the terms and conditions of the NIT and allotment have been filed by the respondent along with the return. Clause 20.02 specifically mandates that the highest bidder shall deposit 25% of the amount within 21 days from the declaration of the successful bidder, and he is also liable to pay 18% GST on the sanctioned premium amount; therefore, the GST payable on the premium amount was known to the petitioner at the time of submission of the bid; thus, the petitioner has wrongly raised an objection in order to avoid the deposit of 25% of the amount. The petitioner was unnecessarily gaining time to raise this frivolous objection. If the petitioner had an objection about charging 18%, he should not have submitted the bid for the shop; after the allotment, he has unnecessarily caused the financial loss to the respondent by not depositing the entire premium amount and monthly rent. So far as the opportunity is concerned, as stated above, three times the respondents granted the additional time to the petitioner to deposit 25% of the amount, which was to be deposited within 21 days from the date of issuance of the allotment's letter, but the petitioner did not deposit any amount and showed his adamant attitude; therefore, after the issuance of the final notice/opportunity, the respondents had no option but to cancel the allotment and go for a fresh tender. There are no scope of interference in the action of the respondents. Conclusion - i) The petitioner has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the tender and allotment without any valid reasons. ii) Cancellation of tender upheld. Petition dismissed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions addressed in this judgment include:

Whether the cancellation of the tender by the respondent was justified under the terms and conditions stipulated in the tender agreement.
Whether the petitioner was liable to pay 18% GST on the premium amount at the time of deposit as per the terms of the tender.
Whether the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to comply with the tender requirements before the cancellation of the allotment.
Whether the respondents acted in a discriminatory manner by treating the petitioner differently from other successful bidders who were given extensions to deposit the required amounts.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Justification of Tender Cancellation

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The tender process was governed by the M.P. Municipal (Achal Sampatti Antaran) Rules, 2016, which outlined the obligations of the bidders and the rights of the tendering authority.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court noted that the terms of the tender clearly required the highest bidder to deposit 25% of the amount along with 18% GST within 21 days of the allotment letter. The petitioner failed to comply with these terms, leading to the cancellation of the tender.
Key evidence and findings: The court found that multiple notices were issued to the petitioner to deposit the required amount, but the petitioner failed to do so, citing objections to the GST demand.
Application of law to facts: The court applied the rules governing the tender process and found that the cancellation was justified due to the petitioner's non-compliance.
Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner argued that the demand for GST was unjustified and that the cancellation was premature. The court dismissed these arguments, emphasizing the petitioner's prior knowledge of the terms.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the cancellation of the tender was justified and in accordance with the tender terms.

Issue 2: Liability to Pay 18% GST

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The terms of the tender explicitly stated the requirement to pay GST on the premium amount.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court interpreted the tender terms as clear and unambiguous, requiring the payment of GST on the premium amount.
Key evidence and findings: The tender documents and the notices issued to the petitioner were key evidence supporting the respondents' position.
Application of law to facts: The court found that the petitioner's objection to the GST was unfounded, as the obligation was clearly stated in the tender terms.
Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner's argument that GST should only be payable on rent was rejected, as it contradicted the tender terms.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the petitioner was liable to pay the GST as per the tender terms.

Issue 3: Adequate Opportunity to Comply

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The procedural fairness in administrative actions was considered, focusing on whether the petitioner was given a fair opportunity to comply.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court found that the petitioner was given multiple opportunities to deposit the required amount but failed to do so.
Key evidence and findings: The series of notices and extensions provided to the petitioner demonstrated that adequate opportunity was given.
Application of law to facts: The court applied principles of fairness and found that the respondents acted reasonably in providing multiple chances to comply.
Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner's claim of inadequate opportunity was dismissed, as the evidence showed otherwise.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to comply with the tender terms.

Issue 4: Alleged Discriminatory Treatment

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The principle of non-discrimination in administrative actions was considered.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court found that other bidders who were given extensions had made partial payments, unlike the petitioner.
Key evidence and findings: Evidence showed that other bidders had complied partially, justifying the different treatment.
Application of law to facts: The court found that the differential treatment was based on the petitioner's complete non-compliance.
Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner's claim of discrimination was rejected, as the circumstances of other bidders were different.
Conclusions: The court concluded that there was no discriminatory treatment by the respondents.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The petitioner has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the tender and allotment without any valid reasons; hence, he has rightly requested cancellation of the allotment."
Core principles established: The judgment reinforced the principle that bidders must adhere to the terms of the tender and that administrative authorities are justified in enforcing these terms strictly.
Final determinations on each issue: The court upheld the cancellation of the tender, found the demand for GST justified, confirmed that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity, and ruled out any discriminatory treatment.

← Previous Next →