<?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>2024 (10) TMI 1101 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760502</link>
    <description>A tender forfeiture was held unsustainable where the bidder had participated and succeeded under an original condition requiring GST to be paid separately, and a later corrigendum withdrew that condition. On the facts recorded, the bidder had not breached any tender term, so forfeiture of the earnest money deposit was arbitrary and discriminatory. The deposit was therefore refundable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 May 2025 13:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=774808" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 1101 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760502</link>
      <description>A tender forfeiture was held unsustainable where the bidder had participated and succeeded under an original condition requiring GST to be paid separately, and a later corrigendum withdrew that condition. On the facts recorded, the bidder had not breached any tender term, so forfeiture of the earnest money deposit was arbitrary and discriminatory. The deposit was therefore refundable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760502</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>