9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1093X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he event of any existing due of Department against a tenderer. The petitioner, by positively denying for any such due, submitted application for the grant of contract to collect revenue for bajri as well as for the building stones. On September 28, 2010 the tenders were opened and the contract was finalized in favour of the petitioner, accordingly, the petitioner deposited half part of the expected annual tax recovery on September 30, 2010 with respondents, as per clause 17 of the terms of tender. On the same day the Commercial Taxes Officer (CTO), Udaipur instructed the petitioner to satisfy the earlier demand due in a tune of Rs. 11,41,479 but as per the respondents the demand letter aforesaid was not accepted by the representative of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unts, an amount of Rs. 8,33,280 was adjusted and remaining due of Rs. 3 lacs and odd was deposited on October 11, 2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that the amount due was determined on October 6, 2010 and that was deposited on October 11, 2010, therefore, no adequate reason was available with the respondents to issue fresh notice inviting tenders. Per contra, as per the respondents, the petitioner-company was facing a default not only at the time of submission of tender but even on the date the tenders were opened. Therefore, the tender submitted by it was rightly cancelled as per clause 14 of the tender conditions. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent-Commercial Taxes Department that a demand of Rs. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he demand already made. The amount of the demand made, may have been under dispute but, the requirement of clause 14 of the tender conditions was for non-acceptance of a tender in the event of departmental dues and such due was existing. In view of it, on October 28, 2010 the respondents had no option but to reject the tender submitted by the petitioner-company. The respondents instead of doing so granted an opportunity to the petitioner to deposit the due amount but he did not choose to do so. In these circumstances, the decision taken by the respondents on October 4, 2010 to cancel the petitioner's tender is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender notice. Beside the above, the petitioner is not at all entitled for any r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
