Facts of the Case

The Municipal Council of Sakti floated a tender (NIT No.365/2023-24, value ₹303.11 lakh) on 16.06.2023 for construction of a B.T. road at Sakti, Chhattisgarh. Nine bidders, including Surajbhan Engineering, submitted bids. By communication dated 06.07.2023, the petitioner's bid was rejected solely because GST returns had been filed for only five months, with returns for March and April 2023 pending, and the tender was awarded instead to Respondent No.3, M/s Govind Kumar Agrawal.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether disqualification of the petitioner's technical bid for non-filing of two months' GST returns was arbitrary and illegal.
  2. Whether the extent of permissible judicial review over a commercial tender decision entitled the Court to set aside the award.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The disqualification was without application of mind, discriminatory and arbitrary, since Respondent No.3 (the successful bidder) had also failed to file its GST return for the same month of May 2023.
  • Relying on Union of India v. Dinesh Engg. Corpn. (2001) 8 SCC 491, even administrative/commercial decisions must not be taken in an arbitrary manner violating Article 14.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The order does not separately record the Municipal Council's arguments in detail; the disqualification communication itself stated the ground of incomplete GST-return filing, and Respondent No.3 had already been selected as the successful (L-1) bidder.

Court Order / Findings

  • Relying heavily on the Supreme Court's ruling in Tata Motors Limited v. BEST (2023), which cautions courts against interfering in commercial tender matters absent a clear case of arbitrariness, mala fides or irrationality, and noting that Respondent No.3 had already been selected as L-1, the Division Bench found no good ground to entertain the writ petition.
  • The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

Important Clarification

This order does not decide any question of GST law — GST-return compliance was simply one of the tender's eligibility conditions. The dismissal turned entirely on the limited scope of judicial review over commercial/tender decisions, not on any interpretation of GST return-filing obligations.

Sections Involved

  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — return-filing requirement, referenced only as a tender eligibility condition
  • Constitution of India — Article 14 and Article 226

Decision – In Favour of

Respondent (State/Municipal Council and M/s Govind Kumar Agrawal) — writ petition dismissed; tender rejection upheld.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur
  • Case: WPC No.3199 of 2023
  • Coram: Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice, and Hon'ble Smt. Rajani Dubey, Judge
  • Date: 19.07.2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.