GST Clearance Certificate Must Be Issued By Dept., Not By CA: Bombay High Court

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has ruled that GST clearance certificate must be issued by the Department, not a private professional; finds no arbitrariness in tender rejection. The bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a technical bid in a government tender, holding that a GST clearance certificate is an essential and mandatory document that must be issued by the GST Department itself, and not by a private Chartered Accountant. The bench declined to interfere with the decision of the District Collector, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, who had rejected the petitioner’s technical bid for failure to submit a proper GST clearance certificate. The tender in question was floated in connection with the 2025 Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti elections, for hiring pendals, furniture, and ancillary items. As part of the eligibility criteria, bidders were required to submit, among other mandatory documents, a GST clearance certificate valid up to the end of March 2025, to be enclosed with the technical bid. The petitioner’s technical bid was rejected by the District Collector on 22 November 2025 on the ground that the requisite GST clearance certificate had not been annexed. Although the petitioner had uploaded a certificate signed by a Chartered Accountant, the authorities held that this did not meet the tender conditions. Following the rejection, the petitioner submitted representations and sought a personal hearing, contending that the tender document did not explicitly state that the GST clearance certificate must be issued by the Department. It was also argued that similar certificates signed by private professionals had been accepted in other districts. The petitioner argued that the rejection was arbitrary and contrary to the tender terms, as there was no specific stipulation requiring the certificate to be issued by the GST authorities. Reliance was placed on a recent Supreme Court judgment to contend that tender conditions should not be interpreted rigidly when the issuing authority of a certificate is not expressly mentioned. On the other hand, the State contended that the requirement of a GST clearance certificate inherently meant a certificate issued by the competent government authority, particularly when the tender involved services subject to compulsory GST compliance and was connected to election-related arrangements. The High Court noted that GST compliance is a statutory obligation, and a clearance certificate for such compliance must necessarily emanate from the GST Department, not from a private professional. The Bench observed that the Chartered Accountant’s certificate relied upon by the petitioner merely stated that GST returns were produced before him and did not certify actual payment of taxes or departmental clearance. Significantly, the Court found that the petitioner was already in possession of a valid GST clearance certificate issued by the appropriate GST officer dated 17 October 2025, but had failed to upload it while submitting the tender documents on 15 October 2025. No explanation was offered for preferring a private certificate over the departmental one. The Court further held that the requirement of a GST clearance certificate was a substantial and mandatory condition, not a minor or curable defect. Therefore, the authorities were under no obligation to grant additional time or an opportunity to rectify the omission. While addressing reliance on a recent Supreme Court decision, the Bench clarified that the cited case related to a financial capability certificate, which could be issued by different authorities, whereas GST clearance involves verification of tax payment to the government, making a departmental certificate indispensable. The Court also rejected the petitioner’s attempt to amend the pleadings to correct the name of the bidder, noting that the petition itself had been filed in an incorrect name despite the tender being submitted in the name of a business entity. Concluding that there was no arbitrariness, illegality, or procedural impropriety in the rejection of the technical bid, the High Court dismissed the writ petition at the threshold. The accompanying civil application was also disposed of. Case Details Case Title: Rajesh Praful Chordiya Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Others Case No.: 901 Writ Petition No.14107 Of 2025 Date: 28/11/2025 Counsel For Petitioner: . J.V. Patil, Advocate Counsel For Respondent: S.B. Pulkundwar, AGP Click Here To Read Order Read More: No Interest Payable on Confirmed Excise Duty in Revenue-Neutral Situation: Calcutta HC Rejects SAIL’s Refund Claim

GST Clearance Certificate Must Be Issued By Dept., Not By CA: Bombay High Court

Membership Required

Latest articles

Parallel GST Proceedings Not Barred Where Different Years & Distinct Allegations Involved: Delhi HC

Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation for Prosthetic Limbs in Motor Accident Cases; Enhances Award to ₹36.20 Lakh

Cause of Action Must Be Judged Without Conducting Mini-Trial Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Supreme Court Quashes Rejection of Plaint Order

No “Make Available” of Technical Knowledge: Supreme Court Upholds Non-Taxability of Receipts Under India–US DTAA

More like this

Parallel GST Proceedings Not Barred Where Different Years & Distinct Allegations Involved: Delhi HC

Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation for Prosthetic Limbs in Motor Accident Cases; Enhances Award to ₹36.20 Lakh

Cause of Action Must Be Judged Without Conducting Mini-Trial Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Supreme Court Quashes Rejection of Plaint Order

About us

Company

Categories