GST registration at bid submission is mandatory; Application Reference Number (ARN) is not a valid substitute.

The Petitioner, a joint venture infrastructure company, participated in a tender issued by Respondent No. 1 (ONGC) on 06.03.2025 for a Jetty Revamping Project

At the time of bid submission on 19.06.2025, the Petitioner’s GST registration was pending; consequently, it submitted an Application Reference Number (ARN) dated 03.06.2025 and an undertaking to provide the GSTIN later

A permanent GST registration certificate was eventually issued to the Petitioner on 23.06.2025

ONGC disqualified the Petitioner’s bid on 29.07.2025, asserting that the failure to submit a valid GST certificate at the time of bidding violated mandatory requirements under Clause 10.5.1 of the Instructions to Bidders (ITB) and Clause 4(j) of the Bid Evaluation Criteria (BEC)

The Petitioner challenged this disqualification as arbitrary, arguing that the ARN constituted substantial compliance

1. Whether an Application Reference Number (ARN) issued under Rule 8(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017, can be considered a valid substitute for a GST registration certificate for determining tender eligibility

2. Whether the requirement to submit a valid GST registration certificate at the bid submission stage is an essential and mandatory condition of the tender

The court primarily applied the statutory framework of the CGST Rules, 2017, specifically Rule 8(5), which identifies an ARN merely as an acknowledgment of a pending application, and Rules 9 and 10, which govern the verification and issuance of a formal Registration Certificate (Form GST REG-06)

It relied on the principle that the author of a tender is the best interpreter of its terms, as established in Afcon Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

Furthermore, it applied the doctrine of strict compliance for essential tender conditions from Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium), which precludes the court from interfering with an authority’s refusal to condone post-bid submission lapses

The court also followed its own precedent in MDC Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. Employee State Insurance Corporation, holding that an ARN does not satisfy the requirement for a valid registration certificate

The court found that Clause 10.5.1 of the ITB and Clause 4(j) of the BEC were unambiguous and mandatory, requiring a "valid GST registration certificate" to be submitted "along with the offer"

The court rejected the Petitioner’s argument that an ARN represents "substantial compliance," noting that the distinction between an ARN and a GSTIN is substantive: an ARN is a tracking number for a pending request, whereas a GSTIN is a legal status granted only after verification

The court observed that only a registered person under Section 25 of the CGST Act can issue valid tax invoices required for ONGC to avail Input Tax Credit

It further reasoned that allowing the Petitioner to cure this deficiency post-bid would violate the "privilege-of-participation" principle and the "level playing field" concept, as other potential bidders without GST registration might have been deterred from participating

Finally, the court held that Clause 10.5.2 (allowing deferred submission for executing offices) was inapplicable as it did not waive the primary requirement for the bidder itself to be registered at the time of the bid

It concluded that an ARN is neither a temporary registration nor the legal equivalent of a GST registration certificate

The court affirmed that ONGC’s decision to disqualify the non-compliant bid was lawful, non-arbitrary, and necessary to maintain the integrity of the competitive bidding process

The court declined to interfere with the award of the contract to the sole eligible bidder, finding no evidence that it was contrary to public interest