9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1093X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of the tender notice. The respondents before terminating the contract or rejection of the tender application submitted by the petitionercompany have not at all appreciated the fact that the demand due already stood satisfied on October 11, 2010, that is prior to inviting fresh tenders on October 13, 2010The petitioner, not only before the respondents but before this court too, tried to conceal the terms and conditions applicable for grant of a contract, those are quite material for adjudication of the issue. The petitioner, along with the petition for writ has placed on record copy of the notice inviting tender but has not placed on record the terms and conditions prescribed by the Commercial Taxes Department for grant of contract. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any, thus, the same was sent for service by registered post acknowledge due. On October 1, 2010 a recommendation was made by the Commercial Taxes Officer to the Deputy Commissioner for not awarding contract to the petitioner as there was a violation of clause 14 of the tender conditions. Accordingly, the tender submitted by the petitioner was cancelled and a fresh notice inviting tenders was issued on October 13, 2010. The fresh tenders were opened on October 27, 2010 and subsequent thereto these two petitions for writ are preferred claiming following reliefs: (i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the tender notification issued on October 13, 2010 (annexure 6) and the proceeding undertake in pursuance thereof may kindly be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 79 was created against the petitioner against the contract of revenue collection for the year 2006-07, against which an appeal was preferred but that came to be dismissed on June 4, 2010. An application then was preferred for rectification of the assessment under section 33 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act and by acting upon that on October 6, 2010 the amount of Rs. 8,33,280 was adjusted, however, a sum of Rs. 3,08,200 was yet outstanding and that was deposited only on October 11, 2010. Prior to it, the tenders were considered on October 28, 2010, a notice thereafter was given to the petitioner on October 30, 2010 to satisfy the demand but no action was taken, as such, a departmental liability was due against the petitioner. While meeti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elief under article 226 of the Constitution of India looking to its conduct. At the first instance, the petitioner while submitting application in pursuant to notice inviting tender positively denied for any departmental dues. This fact clearly reflects that an effort was made by the petitioner to mislead the Department. If the petitioner would have mentioned about the earlier dues, may those be pending consideration before the appellate authority, the respondents would have not considered the tender application submitted by the petitioner, there being a violation of clause 14 of the tender conditions. It appears that just to get the tender cleared the petitioner intentionally not only concealed the fact about the departmental dues but made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
