Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Tools

We've upgraded AI Tools on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Tools

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2025 (10) TMI 671

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rath - Senior Advocate with Shri Ramesh Kumar Saboo, Advocate and Shri Pranit Nagrath - Advocate For the Respondents No.2 to 6 : Shri Jubin Prasad and Shri Kushal Dubey - Advocates ORDER PER: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA, CHIEF JUSTICE Petitioner impugns notification/notice dated 18.08.2025 whereby it was notified that the financial bid of the petitioner shall not be opened. Petitioner also inter alia impugns letter dated 25.08.2025 whereby petitioner was communicated that petitioner has been technically disqualified in the tender. Petitioner further seeks a declaration that petitioner be declared technically qualified and the financial bid of the petitioner be opened. 2. Respondent No.1 M.P. Text Book Corporatio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... petitioner submits that the paper has been tested on a representation that the same is S.S. Maplitho paper and not simply Maplitho paper and believing the said representation, the test report has been furnished. 6. Learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that the bid of the petitioner was non-responsive and as such the rejection of the bid of the petitioner was valid. He submits that there is no challenge to the tender specification in the present writ petition. 7. We note that petitioner has in the present petition only challenged the communication whereby bid of the petitioner has been declared to be technically disqualified. 8. We note that the NIT inter alia required the bidders to file a clearance certifi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d to file a declaration that the paper being offered was S.S. (surface sizing Maplitho Printing Paper) and a notarized declaration to the said effect was to be given while giving the declaration. Petitioner omitted the word 'S.S. (surface sized)' and give a declaration that the paper being provided or being offered was Watermark Maplitho Printing Paper. Even in the sample which was submitted, the words 'SS (surface sized)' was omitted. Clearly, the tender specification required provision of S.S. (surface sized) Maplitho Paper, admittedly which is not the paper offered by the petitioner. On these grounds alone, the bid of the petitioner was non-responsive and the action of the respondents in declaring the same to be non respo....