THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OFASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
M/s. N.P. Associates, Represented By Its Proprietor Sri Nilotpal Pachani And Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Assam, Represented By The Secretary To The Department Of Handloom, Textiles And Sericulture And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.4323 Of 2024
Decided On : 26-11-2024
(A) NIT - Clauses 3(b), 3(e), 13(h) - Technical bid disqualification - Petitioners disqualified for not submitting Annual Audited Report and Income Tax Return for 2022-2023 - Petitioners, as Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs), claimed exemption from submitting turnover documents - Court held that exemption does not apply to required documents under Clause 13(h) - The distinction between Average Annual Financial Turnover and Annual Audited Report emphasized - Court affirmed minimal interference in tender interpretation, supporting authority's discretion. (Paras 12, 24)
(B) Judicial Review - Scope - Courts should exercise restraint in reviewing government contracts, respecting the authority's interpretation of tender documents. (Paras 21, 23)
JUDGMENT :
(Michael Zothankhuma, J.)
1. Heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the State respondents and Mr. D.K. Nath, learned counsel for the private respondents.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners’ technical bid has been disqualified by the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee, vide meeting minutes dated 22.02.2024, on the ground that the petitioners had (1) submitted documents, which were not in conformity with Clause 13(h) of the NIT, as the petitioners did not submit the Annual Audited Report (balance sheet and profit & loss account) and Income Tax Return for one particular year, i.e. 2022 – 2023 and (2) UDIN number in CA Certificate was not distinct.
3. The petitioners’ case is that the petitioners participated in the e-Tender Notice dated 11.01.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NIT’), for empanelment of manufacturers and suppliers for supply of handloom and handloom accessories under the various schemes of Government of India and Government of Assam, implemented by the Directorate of Handloom and Textiles, Assam.
4. The petitioners’ counsel submits that in terms of Clause 3(b) of the NIT, relating to the eligibility criteria of the bidders, bidders were to have not less than Rs. 50 Lakhs as the average annual financial turnover during the last three years, i.e., 2020-2021, 2021-2022 & 2022-2023 and they were also required to have the experience of supply of handloom and handloom accessories for an aggregated value of a minimum of Rs. 10 Lakh during the last three financial years in terms of Clause 3(c). He further submits that in terms of Clause 3(e) of the NIT, Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs) are exempt from submitting their Average Annual Financial Turnover and experience in all public procurements, subject to meeting the quality and technical specification.
5. The petitioners’ counsel submits that even though the petitioners are a Small Enterprise, registered as a Micro and Small Enterprise (MSE), who were not required to submit the average annual financial turnover required and experience of supply of handloom and handloom accessories in terms of Clause 3(b)&(c) of the NIT, in view of Clause 3(e) of the NIT, the petitioners had submitted the documents in terms of Clause 3(b)&(c) of the NIT. He further submits that an Annual Audited Report (balance sheet and profit & loss account) and an Income Tax Return (ITR in short) is the same as an Average Annual Financial Turnover. As such, the Annual Audited Report and ITR mentioned in Clause 13(h) would have to be considered to be the same as Average Annual Financial Turnover provided in Clause 3(b). He accordingly submits that as the petitioners were exempt from complying with Clause 3(b) of the NIT, in terms of Clause 3(e) of the NIT, the petitioners should be exempt from submitting the Annual Audit Reports and ITRs of the last 3 years, i.e. 2020–2021, 2021–2022 and 2022-2023, which is the same as the Average Annual Financial Turnover provided in Clause 3(b). Accordingly, the disqualification of the petitioners’ technical bid, on the ground that it’s documents were not in conformity with the Clause 13(h) of the NIT, does not arise. He further submits that the petitioners’ bid was also disqualified on the ground that the UDIN number in CA Certificate was not distinct. He also submits that similarly placed bidders as the petitioners, have been empanelled by the State respondents and as such, there is discrimination writ large, in disqualifying the technical bid of the petitioners only.
6. Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the State respondents submits that Clause 3(h) of the NIT required the bidders to submit their Income Tax Returns and certified Annual Audited Report (balance sheet and profit & loss account) for the last 3 financial years 2020–2021, 2021–2022 and 2022-2023. However, the petitioners had not submitted the certified Annual Audited (balance sheet and profit & loss accou
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Another
The exemption for Micro and Small Enterprises does not apply to the submission of Annual Audited Reports and Income Tax Returns as required by the NIT.
Income tax returns are distinct from average annual financial turnover; MSE exemption does not apply to income tax return requirements in tender documents.
Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs) are exempt from submitting prior turnover documents in public procurement, ensuring equal treatment in tender evaluations.
MSEs with valid Udyam Registration are exempt from turnover and experience criteria in bidding processes as per applicable regulations, and arbitrary disqualification on these grounds is unlawful.
Tenderers must comply strictly with bid specifications; non-compliance can justify rejection of technical bids.
Compliance with bidding conditions, specifically the demonstration of minimum average turnover, is crucial for the acceptance of bids in public procurement processes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for bidders to comply with the bidding documents, including the submission of documents in the specified format. The judgment empha....
The court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid due to failure to meet registration requirements, emphasizing limited grounds for judicial review.
Interpretation of tender documents in favor of the bidder in case of ambiguity and the importance of adhering to the standards and norms laid down in the tender documents.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.