The Kerala High Court noted that the prime reason for the respondents for not accepting the tender of the petitioner is that the petitioner did not quote tax amounts even though the conditions required disclosure of tax burden.
The petitioner, Fawaz Ashraf is the Proprietor of Elster Electronics and is in the business of installations of street lights and connected electric amenities.
The respondent, Secretary to Kavannur Grama Panchayat invited e-tenders for installation of 24W LED street lighting system. The last date for submission of tender was 27.02.2020. The tender was to be opened on 29.02.2020 at 3 p.m.
The petitioner participated in the tender and quoted a price of Rs.1,579/- According to the petitioner, there were only two tender participants. The petitioner submitted all the requisite documents in support of his tender.
Later, the petitioner came to know that the bid has been finalised in favour of the Green Leaf Technology and work order was issued.
The respondent, Green Leaf Technology had quoted Rs.1,599 which is higher than the quote submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner being the lowest tenderer, the work should have been allocated to him.
The petitioner, engaged in the business in works contract, is before this Court seeking to quash work order by which the respondent, Secretary has awarded a works contract to the respondent, Green Leaf Technology.
The court noted that the prime reason for the respondents for not accepting the tender of the petitioner is that the petitioner did not quote tax amounts even though the conditions required disclosure of tax burden.
However, the petitioner contended that he is paying composite tax and therefore he need not pay GST.
The respondents contended that the petitioner did not upload test reports and did not supply samples.
The single-judge bench of Justice N. Nagaresh held that when respondent authority demanded a test report, the bidders are expected to provide test reports of recent origin. Uploading of a three-year-old test report will not serve the purpose. For this reason, the rejection of the petitioner’s bid is justified.
The bench observed that if respondents chose to opt for two years guarantee after the finalisation of the tender and after negotiations, that cannot be a reason to presume favouritism.Subscribe Taxscan AdFree to view the Judgment