https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764652 A successful bidder who accepted tender terms could not challenge cancellation of the shop allotment after failing to deposit the required 25% of the bid amount and GST within time. The court found that the petitioner knew the conditions at bidding stage, received repeated notices, and raised the GST objection only after allotment, so no arbitrariness or illegality was shown. The parity argument also failed because other bidders had at least made partial deposits, unlike the petitioner. Writ interference was therefore unwarranted, the cancellation was upheld, and the respondents were left free to proceed in accordance with law, including recovery of damages. en-us Wed, 18 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Jun 2025 14:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764652 A successful bidder who accepted tender terms could not challenge cancellation of the shop allotment after failing to deposit the required 25% of the bid amount and GST within time. The court found that the petitioner knew the conditions at bidding stage, received repeated notices, and raised the GST objection only after allotment, so no arbitrariness or illegality was shown. The parity argument also failed because other bidders had at least made partial deposits, unlike the petitioner. Writ interference was therefore unwarranted, the cancellation was upheld, and the respondents were left free to proceed in accordance with law, including recovery of damages. Case-Laws GST Wed, 18 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764652