TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 927
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sels for the parties, the petition is heard finally at the admission stage. 3. In the instant case, it appears that the petitioner-firm had submitted the tender before the respondent-JDA for the development of Bagrana Kachhi Basti under Rajeev Awas Yojana, Agra Road, Jaipur, Package 1B (G+3) 816Du's. The technical bid for the said work was opened on 29.09.2014. The respondentauthority after examination of the documents, etc., submitted by the bidders, prepared the evaluation sheet. In the said process, only two bidders i.e. the petitioner and one another had submitted the bank guarantee worth Rs. 62,00,000/- by way of fixed deposit. On 10.10.2014, the respondents directed the petitioner to submit the Vat clearance certificate. The peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted that the petitioner has not been communicated with the decision taken on the order sheet dated 03.06.2015 for debarring him for three years and that such decision could not have been taken without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 11 of the said Act, and that the respondent has already written the impugned letter dated 08.06.2015 to the concerned Bank seeking invocation of the bank guarantee submitted by the petitioner. According to him, though the Vat clearance certificate submitted by the petitioner alongwith his affidavit dated 18.10.2014 (Annexure-3) was forged one, the petitioner was not aware about the said forgery as he had relied upon his agent i.e. the Advocate, whose service....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... produced by the petitioner before the respondent-authority in order to procure the tender in question, the petitioner has filed the rejoinder stating that the same was done by his Advocate without his knowledge. The said contention is not believable inasmuch as the petitioner himself had filed the affidavit dated 18.10.2014 (Annexure-3), stating interalia that the Commercial Tax certificates issued by the Dy. Commissioner on 21.08.2014 and 14.10.2014 submitted by him were correct and genuine. When the said two certificates submitted by the petitioner raised suspicion about their genuineness, the respondents had inquired from the concerned authority, who vide the letter dated 14.11.2014 (Annexure-R/5) intimated that no such certificates wer....