9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he auction notice specified the list of documents to be enclosed by the bidders along with the bid application. The important documents which are in question in the present case are: "5. Income Tax Return of Previous Financial Year in which the annual income shall not be less than the royalty mentioned in schedule-1 as per annual Minimum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) of minor minerals and additional charge offered in the application of the applicant or Bank Guarantee with 18 months validity which shall not be less than the royalty mentioned in schedule-1 as per annual Minimum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) of minor minerals and additional charge offered in the application by the applicant and the applicant shall furnish details of other immovable property [Income Tax Return of Previous Financial Year showing annual income/ Requisite Extent of Bank Guarantee = Minimum Guaranteed Quantity X (Offered Additional Charge + Royalty)] 7. The bidder shall furnish a certificate/letter from the concerned GST jurisdictional officer that no GST dues are pending against such bidders" 4. The tender drop box was opened, on 05.08.2022 at 11.30 A.M., by the selection committee, comprising of Tahasilda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber, 2022 and the due date of filing of IT return is 31st October, 2022 and for this aforesaid balance sheet may be treated as previous year ITR. It is also clarified that U/S 44AB of IT Act 1961, in case of Partnership firm whose turnover is more than Rs 1 Crore, the due date of filing audited balance sheet and profit & loss account for the year 2021-22 is 30th September and due date of filing ITR is 31st October. Hence the requisite amount of IT return of Assessment year 2021-22 submitted by M/S Sri Venkateswara Constructions Managing Partner Ganta Naga Subrahamanyeswar Rao, Rutisila, District-Keonjhar is in consonance with the Income Tax circular of Govt of India and also in accordance with the tender requirement. Besides these M/S Sri Venkateswara Constructions, Managing Partner Ganta Naga Subrahamanyeswar Rao, Rutisila, District-Keonjhar has also submitted the certificate/letter from the Office of the Supdt. Central GST & Central Excise, Jajpur Range, Jajpur Road, that there is no GST liability against M/S Sri Venkateswara Constructions Managing Partner Ganta Naga Subrahamanyeswar Rao, Rutisila, Distnct-Keonjhar bearing GST IN No.21ABHFS6939AIZD vide C No.CGST- ;21/06/Misc,.GS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Respondent No.1 hurriedly completed the process of verification without verifying the GST certificate submitted by the respondent No.2. As per the records, the Respondent No.1 is satisfied and verified the facts that, the no dues certificate has been issued by the jurisdictional officer of the respondent No.2 and found correct in respect of dues stands against the firm as on the date of selection and no other condition is required to be satisfied, whereas in other hand the appellant has not obtained the GST no dues certificate from his jurisdictional officer, thus there was no scope for any verification. The Appellant has not submitted any more evidence against the documents submitted by the Respondent No.2 which seems to be invalid as per the conditions of the tender or otherwise fake or false. Hence, the objection on this score raised by the Appellant is not sustainable in the eye of law. " 9. On being aggrieved by the order of Sub-Collector the respondent no.4 herein filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Orissa praying to set aside the order passed by the Sub-Collector and Tahsildar. The High Court vide the impugned order allowed the appeal of the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod and at the time of scrutiny of details. Meaning thereby, the authority had reserved the right to cancel and declare the certificate to be invalid. 9. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it had no clues of Goods and Service Tax (GST). On 28.07.2022, the petitioner had applied to the Superintendent, Central Excise (CGST, Keonjhar1 Range for issue of a "No Dues Certificate" to comply with Clause-7 of the auction notice. But the CGST Authorities advised the petitioner to download the information from their website. Accordingly, the petitioner had downloaded the information from their website, which contained the information that the petitioner had no outstanding GST dues. Thereby, the same is in compliance of Clause-7 of the auction notice. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner objected to the bid submitted by opposite party no.4, but. without considering the same, the authorities proceeded with the decision making process of selection and allotment of the quarry....... 10. On perusal of the endorsement of the committee, it is made clear that opposite party no.4 had quoted additional charge at the rate of Rs.589/-, but, so far as its income tax return for the assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the petitioner submitted as follows: 11.1 That the petitioner submitted the latest available Income Tax Return as per the law. The auction notice, issued on 18.07.2022, had a submission deadline of 04.08.2022. According to Section 139(1) and Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the due date for filing the Income Tax Return for financial year 2021-2022 for a tax audit subject bidder is 31.10.2022. Since the Petitioner, a partnership firm with a turnover above Rs. 1,00,00,000/-(Rupees one crore) was subjected to a tax audit and had not yet filed the 2021-2022 return by the bid submission date, the 2020-2021 return was considered the relevant return. In view of express provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 the interpretation adopted by Respondent Nos. 1-3 is reasonable, ensuring fairness and a level playing field for all bidders. A strict interpretation of the bid condition would have been disadvantageous to bidders subject to a tax audit under the Income Tax Act. It is further submitted that it is not impossible to determine the financial soundness of a bidder and eligibility of a bidder under bid condition no. 5 from the latest available income-tax return filed by the bidder. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent No. 4's arguments regarding the same in the impugned order. Accordingly, Respondent No. 2 rightly rejected Respondent No. 4's bid on this ground. 11.6 That While interpreting Rule 27(4)(iv), it is important to consider that the provision was amended less than four months before the auction notice, leaving limited precedent or established procedural practice for authorities to follow. Therefore, the approach taken by the tendering authorities (Respondents No. 1- 3) in not adhering strictly to a literal interpretation of the condition, but instead ensuring a level playing field for all bidders, is reasonable and cannot be faulted. 11.7 That Tax authorities do not typically issue "no dues certificates" as part of statutory provisions but may do so upon request, as in the Petitioner's case for bid submission. Since no specific format was prescribed in S. No. 7 of the auction notice, the Petitioner could not be expected to dictate the format or wording of the certificate issued by the statutory authority. Therefore, it was not within the Hon'ble High Court's purview to impose additional requirements or mandate a specific certificate format when the tendering authority itsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding to the previous assessment year. Despite this noncompliance, the Tahasildar allegedly acted illegally and with mala fide intent in selecting the Petitioner as the successful bidder. Additionally, the Petitioner failed to submit a proper 'no dues' certificate from the GST jurisdictional officer. The certificate submitted was conditional, issued upon the Petitioner's request, and explicitly stated that it would be invalid if any liability arose during scrutiny, implying that the GST authority had reserved the right to cancel it. 12.2 That the tender box was opened on 05.08.2022, and a comparative statement of the bids received under the advertisement dated 18.07.2022 was prepared. The tender committee's endorsements clearly indicated that the finalization of the tender was contingent upon receiving necessary clarifications regarding the bids of both the Petitioner and Respondent No. 4. However, without awaiting these clarifications, the Tahasildar proceeded to declare the Petitioner as the successful bidder on the same day through an allegedly illegal and mala fide order. The Hon'ble High Court, in paragraph 10 of the impugned order, noted this irregularity and the prem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2022 on 22.12.2022 but did not mention that the Tahasildar had made necessary clarifications and confirmations before issuing the order dated 05.08.2022. Similarly, in another affidavit filed on 02.05.2023 in reply to the Petitioner's Rejoinder, no such claim was made. The current assertions by Respondents No. 1 to 3 about the Tahasildar making necessary clarifications are unsupported by documentary evidence and were never argued before the High Court. These statements are misleading, inconsistent with earlier records, and appear to be an afterthought. The Hon'ble High Court, in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment, has thoroughly addressed these issues and given a clear finding. 13. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 to 3 submitted as follows: 13.1 That A review of the endorsements made by the committee shows that clarifications and confirmations were not mandatory. However, as part of a fair tender process, the Tahasildar confirmed the details on the same day, 05.08.2022, after verifying the documents submitted by both bidders. The entire bidding process was conducted in accordance with the OMMC Rules, 2016, and no objections were raised by any bidders d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ificate that the due date of filing of audited balance sheet and profit and loss account for financial year 2021-22 is 30th September, 2022 and the due date of filing of IT return is 31st October, 2022. It was then submitted that the income tax return for the financial year 2020- 21 may be treated as previous year income tax return. A support was taken to the provision namely, Section 44 AB of Income Tax Act, 1961 which state that in case of partnership firm whose turnover was more than Rs. 1 crore, the due date of filing audited balance sheet and profit & loss account for the year 2021-22 is 30th September and the due date of filing ITR is 31st October, 2022. The requisite amount of income tax return of the assessment year 2021-22 submitted by the petitioner is in consonance with the income tax circular of Government of India and was also in accordance with the tender requirement. The second condition in respect of furnishing certificate/letter from the concerned GST Jurisdictional Officer that no GST dues are pending is also complied with by the petitioner. 18. Accordingly, the certificate was issued with the statement that the certificate is not valid in case of any liability a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
