The Delhi High Court has clarified that where the tender conditions expressly require a bidder to possess and submit a valid GST registration certificate along with the bid, such requirement constitutes an essential eligibility condition, and an Application Reference Number issued under Rule 8(5) of the CGST Rules is neither a temporary GST registration nor equivalent to a valid GST registration certificate.
The Court therefore held that a bidder’s failure to possess a valid GST registration certificate on the bid submission date renders the bid ineligible, and the subsequent grant of GST registration cannot relate back so as to cure the original defect. Judicial review will not interfere with a tendering authority’s strict enforcement of such essential conditions where the decision is lawful, non-arbitrary, and applied uniformly.
The Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam SinghArora observed that Clause 10.5.1 of the ITB and Clause 4(j) of the BEC were clear and mandatory, and that possession and submission of a valid GST registration certificate at the bid stage was an essential pre-condition to eligibility. A conjoint reading of these clauses left no ambiguity on this requirement.
The Bench rejected the petitioner’s argument of substantial compliance. It observed that the distinction between an ARN and a GST Registration Certificate was not merely procedural but substantive, since ARN is only an acknowledgment of a pending application under Rule 8(5) of the CGST Rules, whereas GSTIN is granted only upon verification and approval under Rules 9 and 10 of the CGST Rules. Therefore, ARN could not in law be equated with a valid registration certificate.
The Bench found that the subsequent grant of GST registration on June 23, 2025 could not cure the petitioner’s ineligibility as on the bid submission date of June 19, 2025. Post-bid compliance or subsequent issuance of registration could not validate a bid which was non-compliant on the crucial date.
Further, Clause 10.5.2 of the ITB and Clause 4(k) of the BEC operated in distinct and limited fields. Clause 10.5.2 applied only where the contract executing office differed from the bidding office and permitted deferred submission of GST details only for such executing office, while Clause 4(k) dealt with post-award GST compliances for invoicing and enabling input tax credit. Neither provision diluted the primary requirement under Clause 10.5.1, added the Bench.
The Bench emphasized that in tender matters the tendering authority is the best judge of its requirements, and its interpretation of tender terms should not be interfered with unless arbitrary, perverse, or mala fide. In the present case, ONGC’s interpretation was held to be plausible, consistent with the express tender conditions, and in conformity with the statutory framework.
Lastly, the Bench observed that strict insistence on compliance with the essential GST condition ensured transparency and fairness, particularly because other bidders who did not satisfy eligibility conditions may either have been rejected or may not have participated at all. No special relaxation could be granted to the petitioner alone merely because its exclusion resulted in a reduced field of bidders.
Briefly, the petitioner challenged ONGC’s decision dated July 29, 2025 disqualifying its bid in Tender for the Jetty Revamping Project on the ground that it had not submitted a valid GST registration certificate along with the bid, as required under Clause 10.5.1 of the Instructions to Bidders and Clause 4(j) of the Bid Evaluation Criteria. The petitioner had submitted its bid on June 19, 2025. Since on that date, its GST registration was still under process, it submitted the Application Reference Number together with an undertaking. Later, the petitioner subsequently obtained a permanent GST Registration Certificate on June 23, 2025.
However, by emails dated July 07, 2025 and July 12, 2025, ONGC treated the petitioner as disqualified for non-submission of a valid GST certificate. The petitioner made a one-time representation on July 15, 2025, enclosing its permanent GST certificate and a clarification dated July 14, 2025 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Government of Telangana, stating that the ARN was a valid document for tender participation. ONGC nevertheless rejected the bid.
The respondent/ ONGC contended that submission of a valid GST Registration Certificate along with the bid was a mandatory and essential tender condition, that ARN was only an acknowledgment of a pending application under Rule 8(5) of the CGST Rules, and that the petitioner admittedly did not possess a GST registration certificate on the bid submission date.
Appearances:
Senior advocate Rakesh Tiku, along with Advocates Biju P. Raman, Badri Venkata Reddi, Sudhanshu Chaudhary, Usha Nandini V, John Thomas, Nandana Harikrishnan and Monu Singh, for the Petitioners/ Taxpayer
ASG Chetan Sharma, along with Advocates R.V. Prabhat, Daksh Pandit, Shubham Sharma, Amit Gupta, Yash Wardhan Sharma, Naman, and Chetan Lokur, for the Respondents/ Revenue
