TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court sets aside decision, emphasizes compliance with Rule 206, rejects incomplete tenders.</h1> <h3>Rajsekhar Gogoi Versus State of Assam and Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Division Bench's decision and restoring that of the Single Judge. The Court emphasized the ... - Issues:Settlement of a country liquor shop in favor of a respondent, interpretation of Rule 223 regarding educated unemployed youth, compliance with Rule 206 of the Assam Excise Rules, 1945, mandatory nature of Rule 206, financial capability of a tenderer, rejection of tender for lack of particulars.Settlement of Country Liquor Shop:The dispute revolved around the settlement of a country liquor shop in favor of respondent No. 4 following a decision by the Division Bench of the High Court. The appellant, along with respondent No. 4 and another person, had filed applications for the settlement in accordance with the prescribed rules. Rule 223 highlighted the preference to be given to educated unemployed individuals for such settlements.Interpretation of Rule 223 - Educated Unemployed Youth:The crux of the matter lay in determining whether respondent No. 4 qualified as an educated unemployed youth as per Rule 223. The appellant contended that respondent No. 4's educational pursuits precluded her from falling under this category, citing a precedent to support the argument. The Board of Revenue allowed the appeal, concluding that respondent No. 4 did not meet the criteria and her financial details were unreliable.Compliance with Rule 206 - Mandatory Nature:The case delved into the mandatory nature of Rule 206 of the Assam Excise Rules, 1945, post its amendment in 1981. The rule stipulated that tenders must contain all prescribed particulars, with non-compliance leading to rejection. The Court emphasized the importance of furnishing financial details by the tenderer, as mandated by the rule, for scrutiny before settlement.Financial Capability of Tenderer - Rejection for Lack of Particulars:The rejection of respondent No. 4's tender stemmed from the lack of specific financial particulars required by Rule 206. Despite a general assertion of financial capability, respondent No. 4 failed to provide concrete details or supporting documents, rendering the tender incomplete. The Court highlighted the necessity of furnishing comprehensive financial information for scrutiny before the settlement.Mandatory Nature of Rule 206 - Rejection of Incomplete Tenders:The Court reiterated the mandatory nature of Rule 206, emphasizing that tenders must adhere to the prescribed form and include all requisite particulars. The rule clearly stated that tenders lacking necessary details 'shall be liable to be rejected.' In this case, respondent No. 4's incomplete tender warranted rejection, as it did not fulfill the mandatory requirements of Rule 206.Judgment:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Division Bench's decision and restoring that of the Single Judge. The Court emphasized the importance of complying with Rule 206, rejecting incomplete tenders, and ensuring the provision of essential financial details by tenderers for scrutiny before settlement.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
