Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Rejection of bid - requirement of uploading annual turnover certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant for the last five financial years bearing UDIN of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) - The Court found that the stipulation for submitting a five-year annual turnover certificate with UDIN by Chartered Accountants was mandatory. The absence of UDIN was grounds for rejection, and this requirement was repeatedly emphasized in the tender documents. - The Court criticized the Technical Evaluation Committee's reconsideration favoring Respondent No. 5 as unfair, arbitrary, and biased. It noted that the Committee's reliance on documents not meeting the UDIN requirement was illegal and overlooked the mandatory nature of the tender conditions.
Rejection of bid - requirement of uploading annual turnover certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant for the last five financial years bearing UDIN of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) - The Court found that the stipulation for submitting a five-year annual turnover certificate with UDIN by Chartered Accountants was mandatory. The absence of UDIN was grounds for rejection, and this requirement was repeatedly emphasized in the tender documents. - The Court criticized the Technical Evaluation Committee's reconsideration favoring Respondent No. 5 as unfair, arbitrary, and biased. It noted that the Committee's reliance on documents not meeting the UDIN requirement was illegal and overlooked the mandatory nature of the tender conditions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
