Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (3) TMI 927 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

2016 (3) TMI 927 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - TMI - Validity of auction - forgeg Vat clearance certificate submitted - forfeiture of earnest money by invoking the bank guarantee and to debar the petitioner firm from participating in future for a period of 3 years - suppression of material facts - Held that:- The petitioner has not only suppressed the material facts in the petition, but has also not come with clean hands. Though the petitioner knew that the impugned action of invoking the Bank guaran .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is knowledge. The said contention is not believable inasmuch as the petitioner himself had filed the affidavit dated 18.10.2014 (Annexure-3), stating interalia that the Commercial Tax certificates issued by the Dy. Commissioner on 21.08.2014 and 14.10.2014 submitted by him were correct and genuine. When the said two certificates submitted by the petitioner raised suspicion about their genuineness, the respondents had inquired from the concerned authority, who vide the letter dated 14.11.2014 (An .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

h will be paid by the petitioner to the respondent-Authority within one week. By this order, the stay application and other pending application if any, also stand dismissed. - S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8336/2015 - Dated:- 18-1-2016 - Ms. Bela M. Trivedi, J. For The Petitoner : Mr. R.P. Singh Senior Counsel with Mr. Nawal Singh Sikarwar For The Respondent : Mr. Mahendra Goyal ORDER By the Court:- 1. The matter has come up for consideration on the application being no. 36387/2015 filed by the re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ur, Package 1B (G+3) 816Du's. The technical bid for the said work was opened on 29.09.2014. The respondentauthority after examination of the documents, etc., submitted by the bidders, prepared the evaluation sheet. In the said process, only two bidders i.e. the petitioner and one another had submitted the bank guarantee worth ₹ 62,00,000/- by way of fixed deposit. On 10.10.2014, the respondents directed the petitioner to submit the Vat clearance certificate. The petitioner submitted tw .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

od of 3 years, as per the order sheet dated 03.06.2015, which is part of Annexure-7. 4. The respondents have filed the reply resisting the petition alongwith preliminary objections contending interalia that the petition was filed without exhausting the alternative statutory remedy by filling first appeal under the provisions of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). It is also contended that the petitioner had submitted the forged a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tioner has not been communicated with the decision taken on the order sheet dated 03.06.2015 for debarring him for three years and that such decision could not have been taken without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 11 of the said Act, and that the respondent has already written the impugned letter dated 08.06.2015 to the concerned Bank seeking invocation of the bank guarantee submitted by the petitioner. According to him, though the Vat clearanc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n committed by the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel Mr. Mahendra Goyal for the respondentauthority however vehemently submitted that the petitioner had suppressed the material facts from the Court in the petition for obtaining the exparte order, and even otherwise he had submitted the forged and false certificates for procuring tender in his favour. He also submitted that so far no decision has been taken by the concerned authority of the respondents to debar the petitioner as alleged, and no caus .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd to have submitted forged Vat clearance certificates, the said fact was not disclosed in the petition. It was only when the respondents filed the reply to the effect that such false affidavits and the false certificates were produced by the petitioner before the respondent-authority in order to procure the tender in question, the petitioner has filed the rejoinder stating that the same was done by his Advocate without his knowledge. The said contention is not believable inasmuch as the petitio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pondents thereafter had taken the decision to invoke the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner towards the bid security. 8. It is pertinent to note that when the petitioner had not submitted the Vat clearance certificate as asked for by the respondent vide letter dated 13.10.2014 (Annexure-2), and was given last opportunity to submit the same by 14.10.2014, the petitioner submitted one certificate dated 14.10.2014 alongwith the letter dated 14.10.2014 (Annexure-R/1), and another certificate .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version