GST Clearance Certificate Issued by CA Not Acceptable when Tender Involves Services: Bombay HC [Read Order]
The Bombay HC held that for service-related tenders, a GST clearance certificate must be issued by the GST Department and cannot be replaced by one issued by a CA
![GST Clearance Certificate Issued by CA Not Acceptable when Tender Involves Services: Bombay HC [Read Order] GST Clearance Certificate Issued by CA Not Acceptable when Tender Involves Services: Bombay HC [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/12/23/2114283-gst-clearance-certificate-issued-ca-acceptable-tender-involves-services-bombay-hc-taxscan.webp)
In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court held that when a government tender involves rendering of services where payment of GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) is compulsory, a GST clearance certificate must be issued by the GST Department itself and a certificate issued by a Chartered Accountant cannot be accepted.
Rajesh Praful Chordiya, the petitioner, filed a writ petition challenging a communication dated 22 November 2025 issued by the District Collector, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, by which his technical bid was rejected. The tender was floated in connection with the 2025 Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti elections for providing pendal, furniture, and related services on a rental basis.
As per the tender conditions, bidders were required to submit certain mandatory documents along with the technical bid, including a GST clearance certificate valid up to the end of March 2025. The petitioner submitted a GST clearance certificate issued by his Chartered Accountant. On this ground, the authorities rejected his technical bid, stating that the certificate was not issued by the GST Department.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the tender document did not specifically state that the GST clearance certificate had to be issued only by the GST Department. They also argued that similar certificates issued by Chartered Accountants had been accepted in tenders issued by other districts.
The petitioner’s counsel further claimed that he was not given a proper opportunity of hearing before the tender was allotted to another bidder and relied on a recent Supreme Court judgment to argue that tender conditions should not be applied rigidly when the issuing authority is not clearly specified.
The State and other respondents argued that the requirement of a GST clearance certificate inherently meant a certificate issued by the concerned government department. They argued that the tender related to election work, where strict statutory compliance was required.
They also pointed out that the petitioner was already in possession of a GST clearance certificate issued by the GST Department dated 17 October 2025, but he chose not to upload that document while submitting his bid.
Also Read:Tripura HC Quashes VAT Penalty Notices Issued 9 Years After Transactions and Post Refund Claim as Violative of Art 14 [Read Order]
The Division Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar observed that the tender condition relating to the GST clearance certificate was a mandatory and substantial requirement. The court explained that when a tender involves services for which GST payment is compulsory, the clearance certificate must necessarily come from the GST Department.
The court observed that a certificate issued by a Chartered Accountant could not substitute a departmental clearance certificate, especially when the Chartered Accountant did not claim personal knowledge of actual tax payments.
The court also observed that the petitioner had the required departmental GST clearance certificate with him but failed to upload it without giving any explanation. The court pointed out that leniency shown in other tenders could not bind the authorities in the present case. It further observed that once the petitioner’s technical bid was found to be invalid, he could not challenge the acceptance of another bidder’s tender.
The Bombay High Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it at the threshold. The rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid was upheld, and no relief was granted.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates



