TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sales tax, Incometax, etc. Condition no.5 provided that the tenderer must have minimum of three years of experience of similar work. The documents were not before the authorities when the petitioner's tender was examined and rejected as per communication dated 13.7.2008. Nevertheless, the objections of respondent no.2 at serial no.4 regarding not obtaining VAT registration for the past period and not showing VAT clearance for the past two years needs to be appreciated in light of these documents and facts. One of the important conditions of eligibility was that the tenderer must have minimum turn over of ₹ 6 crores in one of the two immediately preceding years. If the petitioner claims that it fulfills such requirement, immediate question of registration under the VAT Act would become germane - The authorities were therefore, correct in not accepting the petitioner's declaration that it fulfilled the necessary requirements merely based on said certificate dated 6.6.2018 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Vadodara. Petition dismissed. - R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11071 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 11-10-2018 - MR AKIL KURESHI AND MR B.N. KARIA, JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed out that price bid of respondent no.4 is not yet opened. There is no question of therefore, comparing the interse bids. 5. Respondent no.4 also opposed the petition. Case of respondent no.4 is that respondent no.2 authority has correctly applied the tender terms. The petitioner did not fulfill the essential conditions. Petitioner's case was therefore, rightly rejected. Bid of the said respondent is within the ceiling imposed by the Government across the State for supplying meals to the Government and other similar schools. 6. Learned advocate Shri Yatin Oza for the petitioner submitted that the authorities have committed a serious error in appreciating the conditions and documents provided by the petitioner in terms thereof. The petitioner had not breached any of the conditions. A minor or technical breach would not be fatal to the petitioner's case. The petitioner's rates are extremely competitive, which should be one of the considerations for the Court to weigh. He drew our attention to several documents on record to which we would refer at a later stage. In support of his contentions, counsel relied on the following judgments : 1) In case of Poddar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions or does not produce the documents in support thereof, its bid will be automatically rejected. Clause 12 required the tenderer to fill up the eligibility criteria requirements in a tabular form. 10. After examination of the tender of the petitioner and the documents accompanying therewith, the authorities came to the conclusion that the petitioner did not satisfy as many as five eligibility criteria. These objections are mentioned in the impugned communication dated 13.7.2018 and read as under : 1) The petitioner does not possess service tax registration number. 2) The petitioner does not have certificate of Commercial Tax department. 3) Whether enjoys professional tax registration or not, is not clear. 4) TIN/VAT number is obtained on 25.5.2016. There is no VAT clearance of past two years. 5) The petitioner had to obtain GST number in July 2017 which the petitioner obtained only on 26.1.2018. Thus the application of GST is not made within time. 11. We are in agreement with the suggestion of Shri Oza that the objection with respect to service tax registration was not valid. The petitioner had produced a notification dated 11.7.2014 issued by the Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confusion with regard to registration, exemption and filing of returns under the VAT Act. The petitioner therefore addressed a letter dated 3.12.2016 and requested the Government to exempt the petitioner. It is further stated that It is submitted that since no returns were filed, the said resulted into default cancellation of the certificate issued under VAT Act . It is further stated that only on 19.1.2018, the petitioner was given proper guidance and that is how registration under the GST Act was obtained. 15. We are conscious that these documents were not before the authorities when the petitioner's tender was examined and rejected as per communication dated 13.7.2008. Nevertheless, the objections of respondent no.2 at serial no.4 regarding not obtaining VAT registration for the past period and not showing VAT clearance for the past two years needs to be appreciated in light of these documents and facts. 16. As noted, all that the petitioner against such requirements had produced was certificate of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Vadodara which certified three things : 1) that the petitioner was granted VAT registration on 21.5.2016; 2) that GST Registratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
