Tender quotation mistake and Central sales tax claim rejected because the bidder was bound by its accepted rate.

A bidder who quoted Central sales tax at 2% in the tender could not, after evaluation and acceptance of the financial bid on that basis, resile from its own quotation and seek reimbursement at 4% merely by alleging mistake. The Court treated the contractual record and comparative statement as showing that the tender was assessed on the rates actually quoted, and it declined to grant writ relief on that factual basis. It also noted that writ jurisdiction is not barred in contractual matters in principle, but interference is inappropriate where the dispute depends on facts evident from the record; the respondents' failure to file an application under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 did not alter that result.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled, in writ jurisdiction, to recover from the State the difference in Central sales tax on the ground that its quotation mentioning CST at 2% was a mistake and that the applicable rate was 4%.

Analysis: The contractual documents and comparative statement showed that the tender was evaluated on the basis of the rates quoted by the bidders, including the petitioner. The petitioner itself had quoted Central sales tax at 2%, and the tender committee acted on that quotation while considering the financial bid. The Court held that the petitioner could not, after the bid was evaluated and accepted on that basis, resile from its own quotation and claim reimbursement at 4% merely by asserting mistake. The Court also held that the writ petition was not barred in principle in contractual matters, but interference is not warranted where the dispute turns on facts emerging from the record and no application under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 had been filed by the respondents.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to claim the additional 2% Central sales tax from the State in writ proceedings.

---