<?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>2025 (10) TMI 671 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779875</link>
    <description>A bidder who fails to satisfy mandatory tender qualifications and product declarations may be treated as non-responsive, and the disqualification will generally stand in judicial review. The court noted that the required clearance certificate had to show the quantity of empty printing paper cleared under Tariff Code 4802 for the relevant financial year, but the certificate submitted referred only to paper under Chapter 48 generally. The bid also lacked the required declaration that the paper offered was S.S. surface sized Maplitho Printing Paper, and the sample omitted that specification. On these facts, the bid did not conform to the tender conditions, and the rejection as technically disqualified was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 09:39:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=858189" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 671 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779875</link>
      <description>A bidder who fails to satisfy mandatory tender qualifications and product declarations may be treated as non-responsive, and the disqualification will generally stand in judicial review. The court noted that the required clearance certificate had to show the quantity of empty printing paper cleared under Tariff Code 4802 for the relevant financial year, but the certificate submitted referred only to paper under Chapter 48 generally. The bid also lacked the required declaration that the paper offered was S.S. surface sized Maplitho Printing Paper, and the sample omitted that specification. On these facts, the bid did not conform to the tender conditions, and the rejection as technically disqualified was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779875</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>