1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

2. The Petitioner has questioned the decision dated 31st March 2021 (Annexure-6) of the Tendering Inviting Authority, namely, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Kendu Leaves, Odisha in rejecting the Petitioner’s bid and awarding the contract to the second highest bidder i.e. Opposite Party No.4.

3. The reason given in the impugned letter dated 31st March 2021 for rejection of the Petitioner’s bid is as under:

“xxx xxx xxx

On scrutiny of broad sheets, it is found that the following two nos of Service Providers have been shortlisted out of 16 nos of Bidders participated.

• Kampa Bhai Vocational Training Institute Ltd., Bolangir

• Kalinga Warriors Security Services, Cuttack.

The Kampa Bhai Vocational Training Institute Ltd., Bolangir has mentioned ₹ 1675/- as Service Tax, which actually comes to 1657.26 @ 18% of the total cost i.e. 9307.01 as mentioned. Accordingly the total figure should be ₹ 10982.27 where in the above firm has mentioned ₹ 10982.01 which leads to suppression of materials fact.

In view of such lapses, the case of Kampa Bhai Vocational Training Institute Ltd., Bolangir may not be considered. As per the recommendation of your selection committee Kalinga Warriors Security Services, Cuttack comes next to be selected.

xxx xxx xxx “

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had rounded off the tax figure by relying on Section 170 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, which reads as under:

“170. The amount of tax, interest, penalty, fine or any other sum payable, and the amount of refund or any other sum due , under the provisions of this Act shall be rounded off to the nearest rupee and, for this purpose, where such amount contains a part of a rupee consisting of paise, then, if such part is fifty paise or more, it shall be increased to one rupee and if such part is less than fifty paise it shall be ignored.”

5. Accordingly, learned counsel for the Petitioner prays that the entire matter should be sent back to the stage of selection of the bid for the Petitioner’s bid to be once again considered.

6. The Court is unable to agree with the above submission.

Reliance placed on Section 170 of the CGST Act, 2017 at this stage when the bidder is supposed to quote the price, is misconceived. Such exercise of rounding off the tax figure will be at a subsequent stage when the actual filing of returns and payment of tax arises and not at an interim stage particularly not at the stage where the price has to be quoted while submitting the bid.

7. In the circumstances, the Court finds no error having been committed by the Tender Inviting Authority in rejecting the Petitioner’s prayer. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

8. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021.