Judgment · High Court

Heard Mr. S. Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. J. Talukdar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents. The pleaded case of the petitioner in this petition is that the Direc tor of Printing and Stationery, Government of Assam, Guwahati, Respondent No. 2, issued a NIT dated 2.6.2008 inviting tenders for supply of stationery articles to the Government Stationery Stores under the Directorate during the year 2008-2 009 as detailed in the Schedule attached to the NIT. At Clause (cid:19)10 of the tender noticed it is provided that before signing tender, the tenderer must specify whether signing as a (cid:28)registered active partn er of the firm (cid:29) and in case of companies whether signing as Director, Secretary, Manager , Partner etc and how he is authorised to do so. At clause 11 of the NIT provides that a tenderer must furnish a VAT Re gistration Certificate, Firm Registration and Certificate Municipality Trade Lic ence duly attested by Govt. Gazetted Officer alongwith the tender, failing which the tender will not be accepted. Mr. Sarma, submits that the petitioner was originally a propietorial firm and in pursuance to the NIT dated 28.5.2008 published for supply of varieties o f different papers to the Respondent No. 2, he having submitted such tender as a proprietorial firm without furnishing VAT Registration Certificate as required in terms of Clause (cid:19)11 of the NIT. Having doubt about consideration of his ten der, the petitioner constituted a partnership firm alongwith the original propri etors and by considering such partnership firm and registering the same under th e Societies Registration Act, he submitted his tender in pursuance to the NIT da ted 2.6.2008. The petitioner also submitted the VAT Registration Certificate th at stood in the name of original partners and as the partnership firm in questio n was registered on 19.6.2008, and such VAT Registration Certificate has not bee n provided to him as per Section 21 of the Value Added Tax Act, 2003, accordingl y, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition. The Respondent No. 2 has clarified its position at Para 4 of the count er filed by him, which is as follows : - (cid:28)That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 1 of the w rit petition, the answering deponent has no comments to offer and that of Paragr aph 2 it is stated that it is a fact that the VAT Registration Certificate was n ot submitted by the petitioner alongwith his tender papers as required under cla use (cid:19)II of the NIT. It may be pertinent to mention here that the petitioner bein g a partnership Firm ought to have submitted the VAT certificate issued in the name of the partnership Firm. However the VAT Registration Certificate which he had submitted was issued in the name of Proprietorial Firm in his own name. In f act, the petitioner submitted the same VAT Registration Certificate which he had submitted alongwith his tender paper for supply of papers i.e. issued in the na me of the petitioners in his status as a proprietorial of the Firm. That apart t he petitioner’s name of the proprietorial firm and the partnership firm are one and same. (cid:29) In W.P.(C) No. 3739/2008 it is made clear that so far a proprietor ial firm is concerned such registration certificate is not necessary but is nece ssary in respect of a partnership firm and the petitioner complied with such req uirement. According to Mr. Talukdar, learned Additional Senior G.A. the VAT Registration C ertification submitted by the petitioner is an irregular one, inasmuchas, it is in the name of the proprietorial firm of one of the partners which was original ly the proprietor. However, Mr. Sarma referring to Section 21 of the Value Added Tax Act, 2003, has submitted that within 30 days from the date of liability to pay such tax a firm is required to apply for registration under the Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and n ot before and the firm being a new one constituted on 19.6.05 such time has not come. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion tha t whether the VAT Registration Certificate submitted by the petitioner conforms with the requirement of law of the Tender Purchase Committee at the appropriate stage and I refrained from rendering any opinion else it will be a premature one . Such decision is to be arrived at by the tender committee. It is an admitted position that at the time of opening of the tender, t he petitioner would be entitled to remain present and while remaining present an y problem as regards to registration of VAT Registration Certificate, the author ity will take note of the same. The concerned authority shall consider the tender of the petitioner on merit alongwith other eligible tenderers. With the aforesaid directions and observations this writ petition stands finally