Calcutta HC Quashes District-Specific GST Registration Rule in Tender for Pre-School Kits at Anganwadi Centres [Read Order]
The Court ruled that district-specific GST registration and local office requirements are unconstitutional barriers
In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court quashed a tender condition that required bidders to maintain local offices in specific districts of West Bengal for the past 3 years, backed by Goods and Services Tax (GST), and ruled that such a restriction was arbitrary, violative of constitutional rights, and created artificial barriers to fair competition.
The matter arose when the petitioner challenged Clause 10 of a tender floated by the Project Officer, Malda, for the supply of Pre-School Education (PSE) Kits to Anganwadi Centres. The clause mandated bidders to show proof of local offices in Malda, Dakshin Dinajpur, or Uttar Dinajpur districts, despite the fact that GST registration is valid nationwide.
The petitioner argued that they have GST registration, and the registration cannot be district-specific, and said that despite being qualified, they were barred from participating in the said tender. The petitioner had successfully participated in similar tenders in Jalpaiguri, Kolkata, and Jhargram without such restrictions. This shows they are capable of fulfilling the contract.
It was also contended that the clause restricts their freedom to carry on trade and business, which is protected under the Constitution. The company relied on the judgment in Vinishma Technologies Case, 2025, where the Supreme Court held that the eligibility criteria should focus on financial capacity, technical experience, and past performance in similar contracts.
On the other hand, the state argued that in earlier tenders (like Jalpaiguri), the petitioner had accepted similar local office requirements without objection and even won the contract. So, they cannot selectively challenge the condition now.
The state also pointed out that since the tender was for supplying Pre-School Education (PSE) Kits to Anganwadi Centres, having a local office was essential. If materials were damaged, a local presence would ensure faster replacement so that children were not deprived. Authorities are the best persons to determine what conditions are necessary in tenders, and such conditions should not be challenged in writ jurisdiction.
After hearing both sides, the High Court noted the petitioner had a valid GST registration in Murshidabad, which is adjacent to Malda. GST registration is valid nationwide and cannot be issued separately for different districts. Clause 10 of the tender required bidders to have offices in Malda, Dakshin Dinajpur, or Uttar Dinajpur for the past three years, supported by GST registration.
The Court affirmed that GST Registration cannot be issued in two separate districts, and authorities cannot restrict bidders to having offices only in the district where the tender is issued. What matters is whether the bidder is competent to supply the materials. If they fail, authorities can take action against them.
The bench of Justice Krishna Rao ruled that Clause 10 of the tender dated 21 January 2026 (local office requirement) was set aside and quashed, and the authorities were directed to issue a corrigendum deleting Clause 10.
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
