<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (12) TMI 1093 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164931</link>
    <description>Tender conditions barring acceptance of bids where departmental dues remain outstanding justified rejection of the petitioner&#039;s bid because the dues existed on the relevant date, and pending rectification proceedings did not extinguish that liability. The Rajasthan HC also noted that the petitioner&#039;s denial of dues, incomplete disclosure of tender conditions, and delayed approach after opening of fresh tenders disentitled it to discretionary writ relief. On that basis, the cancellation of the tender and issuance of a fresh tender notice were treated as lawful, and extraordinary jurisdiction was not exercised in the petitioner&#039;s favour.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2014 19:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354947" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (12) TMI 1093 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164931</link>
      <description>Tender conditions barring acceptance of bids where departmental dues remain outstanding justified rejection of the petitioner&#039;s bid because the dues existed on the relevant date, and pending rectification proceedings did not extinguish that liability. The Rajasthan HC also noted that the petitioner&#039;s denial of dues, incomplete disclosure of tender conditions, and delayed approach after opening of fresh tenders disentitled it to discretionary writ relief. On that basis, the cancellation of the tender and issuance of a fresh tender notice were treated as lawful, and extraordinary jurisdiction was not exercised in the petitioner&#039;s favour.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164931</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>