9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Unfair acceptance of tender, concept of 'viability range,' lack of transparency in the tender process.
Analysis: 1. The judgment addresses the unfair acceptance of a tender for the wholesale supply of rectified spirit by the Commissioner of Excise Assam. Despite the appellant submitting the lowest bid, the Commissioner and the Government called for a revision of the bid based on a 'viability range' concept, which was not specified in the tender notice. The judgment highlights the lack of transparency and fairness in this process, as the appellant was the only tenderer asked to revise the offer, leading to the acceptance of the bid at the maximum of the viability range. 2. The concept of 'viability range' was a central issue in the judgment. The court expressed confusion over the necessity and purpose of this range, as it was not clearly defined in the tender notice. The court questioned the rationale behind setting a viability range when the market price was significantly lower, and the appellant had been supplying rectified spirit at a much lower rate than the viability range for an extended period. The judgment emphasized the need for clarity and logic in such pricing mechanisms to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrary decisions. 3. The judgment criticized the lack of transparency and fairness in the tender process, emphasizing the importance of openness and fair dealing by the government in such matters. The court highlighted that the acceptance of tenders should follow clear procedures outlined in the tender notice to avoid confusion and ensure equal opportunities for all bidders. The court directed that fresh tenders be floated with transparent procedures and emphasized the consequences of abusing power for extraneous reasons, citing a previous legal precedent to underscore the importance of following the law in such cases. 4. Additionally, the judgment addressed a specific observation by the Division Bench regarding the impact of tender rates on government revenue and sales tax. The court expressed disagreement with the notion that accepting a tender at a higher rate would not affect government revenue, highlighting the link between sales tax and sale price rather than supplier profit. The judgment emphasized the need for logical and economically sound decisions in matters affecting government revenue. 5. In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal while affirming the Division Bench's decision to call for fresh tenders and emphasizing the importance of transparency, fairness, and adherence to legal procedures in accepting tenders. The judgment directed the government to clearly state the acceptance procedures in tender notices and ensure a transparent and fair evaluation process for all bidders.
|
