• Inconsistency in the name of the bidder across supporting documents

In a Govt Tender, the bidder has to fullfil some of eligibility cretiria to get qualified in the technical round such as annual turnover, previous contracts etc.

A proprietor who is having more than one business entities(xyz, xyb, ayz) participates in the tender and submits the bid with the business named 'xyz'. 

The bidder submits the documents towards technical qualification, such as Balance sheet in the name of 'ayz', Previous contract documents in the name of 'xyb' and 'xyz' and 'ayz'(mixup). 

So the Tender inviting authority(TIA) rejects his bid on the grounds that,  there is an inconsistancy in the name of the bidder across all the supporting documents.  

The bidder argues that, other two are the branches of the first one and he has common VAT and IT  registrations as a proprietor, and all the  business entities were listed as 'additional business places of dealer' in the VAT registration. 

The bidder files the writ petition in the court challenging the decision of the TIA that since all of his business listed under single VAT registration,  he is eligible to  submit the supporting documents of any business entity in the tender, irrespective of the name of the bidder mentioned. 

The contention of the TIA is, the dealer can have a common VAT or IT registrations as per the rules applicable under VAT or IT for the purpose of submitting the returns.  But the same status can not be considered for Tender process.  Only the supporting documents which is having same name of entity as of the bidding entity will only be considered.  

Which one is correct here.  Can I have the reference of any case laws decided erlier under such circumstances?
Asked 10 months ago in Business Law from Bangalore, Karnataka
1) TIA is justified in rejecting his bid on the grounds that there is inconsistency in name of bidder across all supporting documents 

2) bidder is not eligible to support supporting documents of any business entity in the tender . decision of tendering authority is not arbitrary 

3) the law laid down by the Supreme Court is clear in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, 1994 (6) SCC 651, that the power of judicial review is available to the Court in case the decision made by the authority is arbitrary or not in conformity with the terms and conditions. The Supreme Court, in Tata Cellular case, has held that it was obliged to interfere on the ground of arbitrariness and violation of principles of natural justice, confining itself to the doctrine of judicial restraint, however, by the application of permissible parameters to set right the decision-making process.
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23155 Answers
1216 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
There cannot be a dispute to the proposition that the multiple businesses can be assigned a single VAT number. However, the process of inviting a tender and assessing it is an independent process which can have its guiding rules. Unless the notice inviting tender has a clear mention that the different entities should bear the same business name the tender cannot be rejected on this ground. So the bidder has a lot to argue in the court,
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
18083 Answers
447 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
1) dealer can have a common VAT or IT registrations as per the rules applicable under VAT or IT for the purpose of submitting the returns.  

2) as rightly pointed out by TIA  the same status can not be considered for Tender process.  

3) here is an inconsistancy in the name of the bidder across all the supporting documents.  and hence his tender was rejected 
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23155 Answers
1216 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
The bidder files the writ petition in the court challenging the decision of the TIA that since all of his business listed under single VAT registration,  he is eligible to  submit the supporting documents of any business entity in the tender, irrespective of the name of the bidder mentioned. 
The contention of the TIA is, the dealer can have a common VAT or IT registrations as per the rules applicable under VAT or IT for the purpose of submitting the returns.  But the same status can not be considered for Tender process.  Only the supporting documents which is having same name of entity as of the bidding entity will only be considered.  
Which one is correct here.  Can I have the reference of any case laws decided erlier under such circumstances?
Since the bidder has approached high court with a writ petition on the subject issue, it will not be fair to pass any comment on the matter which is subjudice. 
As a matter of fat the rules referred by the TIA may not be a correct interpretation because if the rule recognizes common VAT and IT registrations, there should not be a problem to accept the tender also because the bidder is willing and ready to furnish any additional security for the tender to be allotted to him.
T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
13964 Answers
127 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
 I still wonder,  is the claim of the bidder that, the 
VAT and IT authorities allowed him to have single common account for all the business entities (under his proprietorship) will be a point for him to argue that,  TIA should accept the supporting documents submitted which is bearing different names for different criteria set under a particular tender.  Can the TIA justify that, the Process of VAT registration is independent process  and not binding on the Tender process.

the TIA interprets the  law in the manner he understood an the bidder argues the matter in the way he presumes the law to be. 
So the court will decide based on the arguments and the provisions of law in this regard. 
I still reiterate my above given opinion, which may be wrong to someone or may be held proper by the court.
T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
13964 Answers
127 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from top-rated lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
Ask a Lawyer

Business Lawyers

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
13964 Answers
127 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23155 Answers
1216 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
18083 Answers
447 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
12084 Answers
228 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Devajyoti Barman
Advocate, Kolkata
5181 Answers
54 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Nadeem Qureshi
Advocate, New Delhi
3523 Answers
129 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Rajgopalan Sripathi
Advocate, Hyderabad
868 Answers
43 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Shivendra Pratap Singh
Advocate, Lucknow
2731 Answers
41 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Lakshmi Kanth
Advocate, Hyderabad
223 Answers
2 Consultations
4.8 on 5.0
Shashidhar S. Sastry
Advocate, Bangalore
1233 Answers
59 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0