9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 734X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s (NIT) dated 19.08.2009 (Annex.1), as issued by the respondents for collection of tax on the named casual commodities, the petitioner-appellant gave his bid for a sum of Rs.91,11,111/- in relation to Pachpadra Group in Barmer Circle. The offer made by the appellant being the highest, the respondents proceeded to award the contract to the appellant by the order dated 10.09.2009 (Annex.2). The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.1,95,000/- while making the offer and deposited further an amount of Rs.5,64,259/- on 17.09.2009 (Annex.3). Thereafter, the notification dated 09.10.2009 came to be issued by the respondent No.2 notifying the award of contract and authorising the appellant to establish the requisite check posts. After the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the respondents on 13.11.2009 (Annex.10) finding it to be against the rules. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the writ petition in the Court. The learned Single Judge considered the writ petition in the impugned order dated 20.01.2010 and found no case for interference with the observations that the tax slab had been reduced by the notification dated 08.07.2009 i.e., more than a month before issuance of the NIT; and appellant's own fault of not taking note of the prevalent rates cannot be taken as a ground in its favour. The learned Single Judge also referred to the rather incongruous and uncertain submission made on behalf of the appellant regarding the error on the part of the respondents in not accepting its alternat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the part of the petitioner-appellant to wriggle out of the contract after finding it not viable could not have been countenanced; and the department cannot be faulted in rejecting the baseless representations made by the appellant. The suggestions about loss to the public exchequer are also baseless, apart from being self-defeating. There was no reason or basis where for the department would have accepted the so-called alternative offer of the petitioner while attempting at wriggling out i.e., of 10% above the offer of the second highest bidder. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that as a consequence of default, when the appellant would be liable for forfeiture of the deposited amount, the total sum received by the Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
