Nila Infrastructure Ltd VS Surat Municipal Corporation

The summary rule in legal proceedings dictates that Shri Dhaval Nanavati, a knowledgeable advocate, has chosen to waive the service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.1. Similarly, Shri Mahavir Gadhvi, also a learned advocate, has waived the service of notice of rule on behalf of [the party he represents]. This indicates a voluntary decision by both advocates to forgo formal notification of the rule, typically a procedural step in legal matters. This waiver suggests an acknowledgment of the proceedings and an agreement to proceed without the need for formal notice, streamlining the legal process.

Shri Dhaval Nanavati, a learned advocate, and Shri Mahavir Gadhvi, another learned advocate, have waived the service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 respectively. With the consent of the advocates for the parties involved, the present petition is taken up for final hearing today.

The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to quash and set aside the decision of the respondent Corporation to disqualify petitioner no.1’s bid, deeming it non-responsive and ineligible. This decision was based solely on the ground that petitioner no.1 did not pay Goods and Services Tax (GST) to the respondent along with the Bid/Document Fee.

The circumstances leading to this Special Civil Application are summarized as follows:

The respondent Corporation issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the “Development of Integrated Group Housing Facility at Dumbhal Tenements of FP No. 18/A TPS No. 33 (Dumbhal) on PPP basis under Redevelopment of Public Housing Scheme­2016.” Initially, the online bid submission deadline was set for 29.03.2017, and the physical bid submission deadline for 07.04.2017. However, these deadlines were later extended until 22.06.2017 for online submission and 01.07.2017 for physical submission.

One of the conditions of the RFP required bidders to make a payment of Rs.18,000/- towards “Bid/Document Fee.” In response to the initial RFP, petitioner no.1 submitted its online bid on 22.06.2017.

The present case involves a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by the petitioners seeking to overturn the decision of the respondent Corporation, which disqualified petitioner no. 1’s bid for a development project on the grounds of non-payment of Goods and Services Tax (GST) along with the bid/document fee. Shri Dhaval Nanavati and Shri Mahavir Gadhvi, learned advocates representing the respondents, have waived service of notice of rule on behalf of their respective clients, indicating consent for the present petition to proceed to final hearing.

The background of the case is that the respondent Corporation issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the development of an Integrated Group Housing Facility. Initially, bid submissions were due by specific dates, but these deadlines were later extended. Petitioner no. 1 submitted its bid in response to the first RFP, paying the required bid/document fee. However, as petitioner no. 1 was the sole bidder, the Corporation re-issued the RFP (Second RFP), setting new deadlines and requiring payment of the bid/document fee along with GST.

Petitioner no. 1 contends that it complied with the conditions of both the first and second RFPs, including the payment of the bid/document fee. However, the Corporation disqualified their bid for failing to pay the GST along with the fee as required by the Second RFP.

The petitioners argue that the disqualification is unjust as they fulfilled all other requirements and that the inclusion of GST was not explicitly stated in the first RFP, which they had followed. Therefore, they seek relief from the court to quash the decision of the Corporation.

The case is now set for final hearing with the consent of all parties involved, and the court will examine the legality and fairness of the Corporation’s decision to disqualify petitioner no. 1’s bid.

The present case involves a Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioners seek to challenge the decision of the respondent Corporation disqualifying petitioner no.1’s bid for a development project on the grounds of non-payment of Goods and Services Tax (GST) along with the bid/document fee.

The background of the case reveals that the respondent Corporation issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the development project initially with certain deadlines for bid submission. However, these deadlines were later extended. Petitioner no.1 submitted its bid in response to the first RFP and also made the payment of the bid/document fee as required. Subsequently, the Corporation re-issued the RFP, termed as the Second RFP, with revised conditions including the requirement to pay the bid/document fee along with GST.

Petitioner no.1 submitted its bid in response to the Second RFP but did not include the GST component in the payment as the respondent had not provided GST details. The petitioner’s Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system calculated GST on reverse charge basis as per the provisions of Central Goods and Service Tax, 2017, but the petitioner did not deposit this amount.

The petitioners now seek relief from the Court to quash the decision of the respondent Corporation to disqualify petitioner no.1’s bid, arguing that the requirement to pay GST along with the bid/document fee was not met due to lack of clarity and information provided by the Corporation regarding GST details.

With the consent of the learned advocates for both parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. The Court will now consider the arguments presented and decide on the appropriate course of action.

The present case involves a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to challenge the decision of the respondent Corporation to disqualify petitioner no.1’s bid for a development project due to non-payment of Goods and Services Tax (GST) along with the bid/document fee.

The petitioners participated in a Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by the respondent Corporation for the development of an Integrated Group Housing Facility. Initially, the bid submission deadline was extended, and petitioner no.1 submitted its bid on both online and physical platforms, complying with the conditions of the First RFP, including payment of the bid/document fee. Subsequently, the Corporation re-issued the RFP (Second RFP) with revised deadlines and required GST payment along with the bid/document fee. Petitioner no.1 submitted its bid again, but due to ambiguity regarding the GST payment process, petitioner no.1 did not initially include GST in its payment.

Upon inquiry, petitioner no.1 was informed by the respondent that GST was indeed required to be paid, and accordingly, petitioner no.1 attempted to rectify the situation by submitting a Demand Draft for the GST amount. Despite these efforts, the respondent refused to accept the GST payment and subsequently disqualified petitioner no.1’s bid.

In response, petitioner no.1 communicated its willingness to bear any penalties for the late GST payment. However, the respondent still refused to accept the payment, leading petitioner no.1 to address the Municipal Commissioner regarding the matter.

The petitioners argue that they made genuine efforts to comply with the GST requirement and rectify any deficiencies in their bid submission. They contend that their bid should not have been disqualified solely based on the GST payment issue, especially considering their attempts to rectify the situation in good faith.

The court is asked to quash the decision of the respondent Corporation to disqualify petitioner no.1’s bid and to provide appropriate relief in favor of the petitioners. With the consent of the advocates for both parties, the petition is scheduled for final hearing.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: