Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Employee conflict disclosures and investment restrictions expand with new recusal duties, post-employment limits, and compliance reporting requirement...
Challenges to disclosed parameter-wise technical evaluations...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fresh RFPs.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Challenges to disclosed parameter-wise technical evaluations remain maintainable where an earlier challenge was premature and the disclosure creates a fresh cause of action; res judicata and constructive res judicata do not apply to issues that could not then be adjudicated. In public procurement, comparative technical assessment requires disclosed objective standards, recorded reasons for deductions, consistent marking of materially similar proposals, and meaningful communication of reasons. Numerical scores and oral presentations cannot replace contemporaneous reasons or cure undisclosed benchmarks. Failure to meet these requirements makes the evaluation arbitrary, opaque and contrary to equality, natural justice and fair administrative action. The technical evaluations and consequential awards were set aside, with fresh RFPs directed and existing services continued pending completion.
Challenges to disclosed parameter-wise technical evaluations remain maintainable where an earlier challenge was premature and the disclosure creates a fresh cause of action; res judicata and constructive res judicata do not apply to issues that could not then be adjudicated. In public procurement, comparative technical assessment requires disclosed objective standards, recorded reasons for deductions, consistent marking of materially similar proposals, and meaningful communication of reasons. Numerical scores and oral presentations cannot replace contemporaneous reasons or cure undisclosed benchmarks. Failure to meet these requirements makes the evaluation arbitrary, opaque and contrary to equality, natural justice and fair administrative action. The technical evaluations and consequential awards were set aside, with fresh RFPs directed and existing services continued pending completion.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.