<?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>18% GST on human health and social care tender upheld, GST-inclusive bid evaluation and indemnity bond valid</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94805</link>
    <description>HC held that 18% GST is chargeable on the &quot;Human Health and Social Care Services&quot; forming the subject of the tender, relying on the contemporaneous clarification issued by the GST Department. Applying this, HC found no infraction of tender conditions in the procuring authority&#039;s decision to evaluate bids on a GST-inclusive basis and to require an indemnity bond from the successful bidder. The authority&#039;s treatment of the second respondent as L-1 on a price-inclusive-of-GST comparison was neither arbitrary nor perverse. Noting that the contract has been in operation and that interference would disrupt essential public services, HC declined to interdict the award and dismissed the petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2025 08:46:10 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2025 08:46:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=869693" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>18% GST on human health and social care tender upheld, GST-inclusive bid evaluation and indemnity bond valid</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94805</link>
      <description>HC held that 18% GST is chargeable on the &quot;Human Health and Social Care Services&quot; forming the subject of the tender, relying on the contemporaneous clarification issued by the GST Department. Applying this, HC found no infraction of tender conditions in the procuring authority&#039;s decision to evaluate bids on a GST-inclusive basis and to require an indemnity bond from the successful bidder. The authority&#039;s treatment of the second respondent as L-1 on a price-inclusive-of-GST comparison was neither arbitrary nor perverse. Noting that the contract has been in operation and that interference would disrupt essential public services, HC declined to interdict the award and dismissed the petition.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2025 08:46:10 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94805</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>