ARN Cannot Be Equated With Valid GST Registration Certificate: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has recently upheld Oil and Natural Gas Corporation's (ONGC) decision to reject a bid for failure to submit a valid Goods and Services Tax registration certificate at the time of bidding, holding that an Application Reference Number (ARN) cannot substitute a GST certificate in tender processes.

A Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, while dismissing a writ petition filed by Anantaa-MRKR-Arinfra (JV) Pvt. Ltd., said:

“An ARN is only an acknowledgment of a pending application under Rule 8(5) of the CGST Rules, whereas a GSTIN is granted only upon due verification and approval under Rules 9 and 10 of the CGST Rules. Therefore, an ARN cannot, in law, be equated with a valid registration certificate.”

The petition challenged the company's disqualification from a jetty revamping tender issued by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited. The bid, submitted on June 19, 2025, included only an ARN since the GST registration was still under process. The certificate was issued shortly after, on June 23, 2025.

ONGC treated the absence of a valid GST registration certificate at the time of bidding as failure to meet an essential eligibility condition under the tender. The disqualification was communicated through emails dated July 7 and July 12, 2025, and later confirmed by a decision dated July 29, 2025.

Before the court, the petitioner argued that the ARN constituted valid interim proof of GST registration and that the defect stood cured once the certificate was issued. It relied on the doctrine of substantial compliance and pointed to clauses permitting undertakings.

The Bench was not persuaded. It found that the requirement to possess and submit a GST registration certificate along with the bid was clearly stipulated and formed an essential eligibility condition, not something that could be relaxed later.

“The language employed is clear, mandatory, and has no ambiguity. This requirement is further reinforced by Clause 4(j) of BEC, which expressly provides that offers not accompanied by a valid GST registration certificate are liable to be rejected,” the court observed.

Dealing with the argument that the later grant of registration should suffice, the court held:

“The subsequent grant of registration cannot relate back to cure the initial ineligibility, nor can it be relied upon to validate a non-compliant bid.”

Allowing such post-bid compliance would undermine fairness in the tender process, the Bench noted, as other bidders who did not meet the eligibility criteria may have chosen not to participate.

The court also upheld ONGC's interpretation of its own tender, reiterating that the tendering authority is best placed to construe its conditions and that judicial review is limited unless the decision is arbitrary or perverse.

It further noted that the petitioner was incorporated only on May 29, 2025 and applied for GST registration on June 3, 2025, even though the tender had been issued on March 6, 2025. The failure to meet the eligibility condition in time, the court observed, was “of its own doing.”

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.