1. The Petitioner has filed this petition questioning the rejection of its bid pursuant to the short tender call notice issued by Opposite Party No.1 for supply of medical books and medical journals for the Central Library of Opposite Party No.1 at Burla.

2. One of the tender conditions, which the Petitioner has not been able to fulfil, is the furnishing of the Petitioner’s GST registration. This requirement is explicitly spelt out in the terms and conditions attached to the notice inviting tender (NIT).

3. The ground on which the Petitioner questions the above requirement is that it is a non-essential condition since under the Orissa Goods and Services Tax Act (OGST Act), no GST is payable on printed books.

4. However, as pointed out by Mr. P.K.Muduli, learned A.G.A. appearing for the Opposite Parties, under Section 22 of the OGST Act any supplier, making a taxable supply of books or services, shall be liable to be registered. This, according to him, has to be read with Section 7 of the OGST Act. In other words, the submission is that while the goods themselves may or may not be taxable, the requirement of the registration is mandatory under the OGST Act.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in the rejoinder contends that the above tender condition ought to be deleted as earlier there was never such a condition. He adds that, in any event, even after the tender in question, the Petitioner has been called upon to supply books to Opposite Party No.1.

6. It is to be noted here that on 4th March, 2020 an interim order was passed by this Court that the tender process may continue but no final decision shall be taken thereon. The said interim order is continuing till now.

7. An examination of the conditions attached to the NIT reveals that the requirement of furnishing the GST registration is mandatory. It is stated in the conditions attaching to the NIT, in explicit terms. It does not appear to this Court that the requirement of the bidder having to supply the valid GST registration certificate is not an essential condition. It is pointed out in the counter affidavit filed by Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 that pursuant to the NIT, two bidders, viz., M/s.Padmalaya and the present Petitioner participated. The bid of the Petitioner was rejected for non-submission of the GST certificate. The other bidder M/s.Padmalaya submitted a valid GST Certificate. However, the bid of M/s.Padmalaya was rejected for nonsubmission of other documents. It is also pointed out that similar tenders incorporating submission of GST registration certificate as a conditions have been issued by the SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack and the Indira Gandhi Institute of Technology, Dhenkanal.

8. There is merit in the contention of Mr. Muduli that the issue of a particular product not being amenable to GST is very different from the requirement of a supplier of goods having to get a valid GST registration. As pointed out, it is quite possible that in future the goods that are presently exempt from GST, may be amenable to it.

9. In the circumstances, the Court is not persuaded that any direction should be issued to Opposite Party No.1 to delete the above requirement as one of the essential conditions to be fulfilled by the bidders.

10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The interim order stands vacated.