TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 749
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... qualified and L-1 bidder. The petitioner has incorporated challenge to said communication by amending the writ petition. 3. The petitioner contends that, he is a reputed contractor and since year 2021 undertakes the work of water supply through Tankers under various contracts. Respondent No.3 - District Collector, Beed had floated E-Tender notice dated 13.7.2023 inviting bids for supply of water Tankers in District Beed. As per Schedule, the petitioner submitted his bid alongwith requisite documents. In all 8 bidders participated in Tender process. On Technical scrutiny all eight (8) participant were declared qualified. On opening of Financial Bids, the Petitioner was declared as lowest bidder being L-1. His bid was 43% below the estimated price quoted in E-tender notice. The petitioner, being lowest bidder, was expecting the work order. He submitted representation for execution of the agreement, however, to his surprise, he received a communication/notice dated 25.9.2023 by which 3 (two) lowest bidders including the petitioner were invited for negotiations in the office of Respondent No.3. Petitioner objected to such notice being contrary to the terms of Tender as well as the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Supreme Court of India in case of Poddar Steel Corporation Vs. Ganesh Engineering Works and others reported in [(1991) 3 SCC 273] to contend that Tendering Authority is entitled to give up Tender conditions of little or no significance. Considering nature of the contract and non-applicability of GST for the work under tender, such condition was waived. The petitioner and one another bidder were declared qualified in Technical bid giving benefit of waiver. After opening of financial bid, when the petitioner was found the lowest bidder (L-1), wherein he had quoted 43% below the estimated costs, malafidely, he is declared as disqualified with intention to accommodate other bidders. Ms. Talekar, further submits that respondent no.3 had invited other two lower bidders for negotiations after opening of Financial Bid. The petitioner had objected the same. Being enraged by such action on the part of the petitioner and with an object to accommodate other bidders, impugned order of disqualification is passed, which is arbitrary and tainted with malafides. 6. The learned AGP as well as the learned advocate appearing for the intervenor justified the impugned orders. They would submit th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a meeting was arranged on 3.10.2023 in the office of respondent no.3. Immediately, on receipt of said communication, petitioner raised his objection vide representation dated 26.9.2023 and pointing out that petitioner is successfully executing the similar contracts and holds requisite vehicles and manpower. We find that course adopted by the respondents, thereby inviting three bidders for negotiations was not in consonance with Tender conditions. Since petitioner's representation was not positively responded, he filed present writ petition challenging the notice/communication dated 25.9.2023. It appears that immediately, a show cause notice dated 30.10.2023 has been served to the petitioner as to why he shall not be disqualified for non-compliance of condition no.11 regarding GST and final order dated 7.11.2023 regarding disqualification of the petitioner came to be passed. 9. It is trite law that Tendering Authority has right to incorporate the conditions of Tender and also seek the compliance from the bidders. Pertinently, in present case condition no.11 mandates that Bidders must furnish GST numbers as well as the details of returns for financial year 2022-2023 certified by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Supreme Court of India in case of C.J. Fernandez Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (1990) 2 SCC 488 so also in case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India reported in (1979) 3 SCC 489. 12. Once we conclude that there was deliberate/thoughtful waiver of the condition no.11 by the Tendering Authority, by which the petitioner was declared as qualified, although he was not holding GST registration or clearance certificate, it is difficult to justify the subsequent order disqualifying petitioner relying upon the same condition. We observe that when petitioner surfaced as lowest bidder, respondent no.3 issued a communication calling upon the petitioner and other two bidders for negotiations, instead issuing the work order in favour petitioner being L-1. Further, when the petitioner objected to such an action of respondent no.3 through his representation and later-on by filing present petition, a show cause notice appears to have been issued to him quoting non-compliance of the condition no.11 and, consequently, second impugned order of disqualification of the petitioner has been passed. We find that aforesaid action on the part of the Tendering Author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....े, सन- आयकर à¤à¤°à¤£à¤¾ केलà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤šà¥‡ विवरपतà¥à¤° आरà¥à¤¥à¤¿à¤• वरà¥à¤·- २०१९ - २०२० (Assessment Year-2020-2021), 2020-2021 Assessment Year-2021-2022) व 2021- Document 2 2022(Assessment Year - 2022 2023) या तीन वरà¥à¤·à¤¾à¤‚चे आयकर à¤à¤°à¤£à¤¾ केलेले विवरणपतà¥à¤° ITR-V या फॉरमॅट मधà¥à¤¯à¥‡ सादर करावेत व पॅन कारà¥à¤¡à¤šà¥€ छायाकिंत पà¥à¤°à¤¤ जोडणे बंधन कारक राहील. संबंधित वैयकà¥à¤¤à¥€à¤• à¤....