https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759341 Under the tender conditions, GST registration in the concerned State was mandatory for eligibility, and participation was confined to bidders registered in that State or Union Territory. As the petitioners had no GST registration in Assam, their bids were correctly cancelled despite their registration elsewhere and their empanelment on the e-platform. The Court held that the tender author was entitled to construe the eligibility , that a claim based on different treatment in another State could not succeed because there is no negative equality, and that no concluded contract arose since the cancellation occurred before any release order. Interference under Article 226 was therefore unwarranted. en-us Wed, 18 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Sep 2024 13:45:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759341 Under the tender conditions, GST registration in the concerned State was mandatory for eligibility, and participation was confined to bidders registered in that State or Union Territory. As the petitioners had no GST registration in Assam, their bids were correctly cancelled despite their registration elsewhere and their empanelment on the e-platform. The Court held that the tender author was entitled to construe the eligibility , that a claim based on different treatment in another State could not succeed because there is no negative equality, and that no concluded contract arose since the cancellation occurred before any release order. Interference under Article 226 was therefore unwarranted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 18 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759341