Introduction
The interpretation and completeness of financial statements (‘FSs’), particularly balance sheets (‘BSs’), have perennially been a critical factor in the legal scrutiny of corporate disclosures. On 16.04.2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court (‘Apex Court’) delivered a judgment in the case of State of Bihar v. Ziqitza Health Care Ltd.[i] holding that the legal mandate requiring notes of accounts to be an integral part of the BS and that the absence of these notes can lead to the disqualification of a bidder in a tender process.
*Note: This analysis is limited to the relevance of explanatory notes of accounts in an entity's BS. Thus, the other incidental issues dealt with by the Apex Court are not taken into consideration. *
Brief Facts
A tender was floated by the state government which received the participation of several companies. One such company, namely M/s. BVG India Ltd. submitted its bid. However, the state government disqualified the said company since the explanatory notes of the BS were not attached to the tender documents.
This disqualification was challenged before the High Court (‘HC’). After reviewing the pertinent facts, the HC concluded that such disqualification was incorrect and untenable since there was no mandatory requirement to maintain and provide notes of accounts along with the BS, and the absence of such notes could not have affected the tender bidding process.
Thus, the primary issue for consideration of the Apex Court was whether the notes of accounts formed an integral part of the BS and whether non-submission of such notes was a valid ground for disqualification of a participant from the tender process.
Held
The Apex Court, relying on the interpretation of s. 134(7) of the Companies Act, 2013 (‘Act’), held that the HC’s decision to set aside the disqualification of M/s. BVG India Ltd. was not sustainable in law.
The court relied on the precedent set in State Bank of India v. Krishidhan Seeds Private Limited[ii], which recognised the importance of the explanatory notes of the BS as provided under s. 134(7) of the Act.
The Apex Court reinforced the idea that understanding BSs requires delving into the factual explanations provided in the accompanying notes and held that the explanatory notes are indispensable in the analysis of any BS.
Thus, the disqualification of the bidder who had submitted its BS without appending the relevant explanatory notes was upheld, emphasizing the importance of explanatory notes of accounts in interpreting the BS. Citing the prevailing laws and precedents, the court established that notes of accounts form an essential part of FSs and must be considered in conjunction with the BS. The failure to submit these notes can justify disqualification in the bidding process.
Our Analysis
This case references s. 134(7) of the Companies Act, which mandates the inclusion of notes alongside FSs. The Court emphasized that these notes provide essential clarifications and details that are not captured in the ledger entries alone. Thus, they are not merely ancillary but are in fact critical for a complete understanding of the financial health and specifics of a company.
This ruling aligns with prior decisions, including State Bank of India v. Krishidhan Seeds Private Limited (Supra), which acknowledged the legal necessity of including notes in financial disclosures to provide a transparent and complete picture of financial status.
Essentially, the notes serve to unpack the entries in the BS, offering explanations and additional data that might include contingent liabilities, commitments not listed in FSs, and significant accounting policies.
This judgment is likely to have significant implications on how FSs in a tender process are submitted by the bidders. Entities looking to participate in government and large corporate tenders should ensure rigorous compliance with the tender specifications and prepare for stringent scrutiny of their qualification documents, particularly their FSs.
End Notes
[i] [2024] 161taxmann.com723 (SC).
[ii] [2023] 1 SCC 209.
Authored by Shreya Manchanda, Intern at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinion.
More Insights
24-07-2026
10
min read
‘Shylockian’ Lending is ‘Squeezing of Blood’: NCLT Moves Beyond Debt & Default to Reject a Section 7 Application
In a rare departure from the conventional debt-and-default enquiry under section 7 of the IBC, the NCLT, Kochi Bench rejected the financial creditors' petition after characterizing the underlying arrangement as a ‘Shylockian system’ of lending. This court ruling discusses Shylockian lending and examines the strength of the Tribunal's focus on the economic substance of the transaction against established legal principles governing admission under section 7 of the IBC.
10-07-2026
7
min read
Faceless Reassessment after S. 147A: What the Supreme Court Did – and Did Not – Decide
The Supreme Court's decision in Tej Pratap Singh does not settle the JAO–FAO controversy. Following Parliament's retrospective insertion of s. 147A, it remands the issue to the High Courts for fresh consideration. Faceless reassessment was never merely about moving tax files from paper to portal; it fundamentally changed the statutory authority responsible for communicating with the taxpayer, examining the record, drafting the order and completing the assessment. The real question now is how far a retrospective legislative clarification can go.
22-06-2026
8
min read
Claim Admission is not Debt Acknowledgement: Supreme Court on RP’s Role & Limitation under the IBC
Can admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act? In Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, holding that claim admission during CIRP is merely a statutory claim-verification process and not an acknowledgement of debt. The ruling clarifies the RP’s non-adjudicatory role and reinforces important principles governing limitation under the IBC.