https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394156 The Chhattisgarh HC held that territorial jurisdiction existed because the tender concerned a project in Chhattisgarh and part of the cause of action arose there under Article 226(2); a contractual jurisdiction clause could not exclude constitutional writ jurisdiction on that basis. On the tender merits, the Court held that where the conditions required the quoted base price to exclude GST and the tax was to be borne by the employer, the bid could not be unilaterally reduced by treating it as GST-inclusive, nor could coercive steps such as forfeiture of earnest money or blacklisting be imposed. The impugned action was quashed, leaving the respondents free to re-evaluate the bids or proceed afresh under the tender terms. en-us Mon, 23 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Oct 2020 13:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394156 The Chhattisgarh HC held that territorial jurisdiction existed because the tender concerned a project in Chhattisgarh and part of the cause of action arose there under Article 226(2); a contractual jurisdiction clause could not exclude constitutional writ jurisdiction on that basis. On the tender merits, the Court held that where the conditions required the quoted base price to exclude GST and the tax was to be borne by the employer, the bid could not be unilaterally reduced by treating it as GST-inclusive, nor could coercive steps such as forfeiture of earnest money or blacklisting be imposed. The impugned action was quashed, leaving the respondents free to re-evaluate the bids or proceed afresh under the tender terms. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 23 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394156