TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (1) TMI 1137
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sons, Assam. The contract pertains to supply of 11,000 numbers of woollen blankets for consumption in the jails in the State. Amongst the six tenders the petitioner's offer at Rs. 234 was found to be the second lowest and the offer of respondent No. 4 at Rs. 235 was found to be the third lowest. The tender of party which made the lowest offer was rejected as non-responsive. The petitioner challenged the Purchase Committee's decision taken on November 17, 2009, whereby the committee declined to consider the petitioner's offer purportedly due to (i) non-submission of the sales tax clearance certificate, and (ii) the petitioner had pledged the earnest money in favour of the "IGP" instead of "Inspector General of Prisons". Before proceedi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s is required, was endorsed by the Superintendent in the Office of the Inspector General of Prisons, Assam, Guwahati and therefore the description of the pledged authority in the shorter version as "IGP" in the NSC/KVPs should not result in disqualification of the petitioner. The learned counsel by reference to the letter dated December 22, 2009 of the Assistant Post Master, NSC/KVP, Guwahati, submits that the pledged documents have been endorsed in favour of the "Inspector General of Prisons, Assam" and not to "IGP" and therefore the petitioner cannot be said to have breached the clause 6 requirement. The learned counsel also submits that the object of furnishing the earnest money is to show financial soundness and that the party is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Superintendent of Tax and submits that the tender of the petitioner ought to be considered valid and cannot be rejected for non-furnishing the sales tax clearance certificate which could not be furnished by anyone. Mr. D.P. Chaliha learned senior counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that in pursuant to his selection by the purchase committee, the authority has already directed respondent No. 4 to commence supply and on the basis of order dated December 8, 2009, the respondent had placed orders for delivery of the goods and only because of the subsequent letter dated December 24, 2009 of the Deputy I. G. of Prisons, the supply order could not be executed by him. Mr. Chaliha further submits that the petitioner should have submitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accepted for consideration, whereas the petitioner's tender has not been considered, due to non-submission of the sales tax clearance certificate which according to the purchase committee is required to be submitted as per clause 7(a) of the tender notice. Even on a prima facie reading of clause 7(a) it can be gathered that there is no requirement of furnishing a VAT clearance certificate and under such circumstance in my view, the petitioner could not have been considered to be a invalid tenderer under clause 7(a) for non-furnishing of a VAT clearance certificate as that was not stipulated in any of the clauses of the tender notice. In any case from the proceeding of the Departmental purchase committee held on November 17, 2009 (annexur....