No enforceable contractual right arises without acceptance, and a GST regime change justified excluding GST from future offers.

The shift in the indirect tax regime from 1 July 2017 justified the State's decision to invite future contract offers excluding GST. Because no letter of acceptance had been issued, no concluded contract arose and the bidder acquired no vested or enforceable right to insist on acceptance of its offer. In the absence of a concluded contract, and with no material showing the decision to be illegal or arbitrary, judicial interference was not warranted. The State's approach in not acting upon tenders invited between 1 July 2017 and 5 August 2017 was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State Government's decision to exclude GST from future contract offers and not act upon tenders invited between 1.7.2017 and 5.8.2017 was illegal or arbitrary, and whether the petitioner had any enforceable right in the absence of a concluded contract.

Analysis: The change in the indirect tax regime from 1.7.2017 justified the Government's decision to invite future offers excluding GST. The petitioner had not been issued a letter of acceptance, and therefore no concluded contract came into existence. In such circumstances, the petitioner could not claim a vested right to insist on acceptance of its offer, and the decision was not shown to be illegal or arbitrary warranting interference.

Conclusion: The challenge failed; the petitioner had no enforceable contractual right, and the State's decision was upheld.

---