Mrs. Kakali Bera & Another Versus Union of India & Others
GST
2018 (1) TMI 1003 – CALCUTTA HIGH COURT – TMI
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 17-1-2018
W. P. No. 569 ( W ) of 2018
GST
Debangsu Basak, J.
\nMr. Harpal Singh, Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharya for the petitioners
\nMr. Indrajit Das Gutpa, Mr. Tapan Bhanja for the respondent
\nORDER
\nA tender process initiated by the Geological Survey of India, Eastern Region by a notice inviting tender dated April 27, 2017 is under challenge in the present writ petition.
\nLearned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that, the petitioner was found to be technically qualified and their financial bid was opened. At the opening of the financial bid, the petitioners were found to<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n presented. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n eld to all the participants participating in the tender process. The action of the authorities in obtaining information from the participants as to the tax implications cannot faulted. It is within their rights to have such information. Apparently, the petitioners contended that, their bid did not include GST and that, the employer has to pay extra on account of GST. The successful bidder, however, stated that, their price included GST. On evaluation, the authorities found the price quoted by the successful bidder to be lower than that of the petitioner after taking GST implications. Such a decision cannot faulted as being perverse. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Mrs. Kakali Bera & Another Versus Union of India & OthersGST2018 (1) TMI 1003 – CALCUTTA HIGH COURT – TMICALCUTTA HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 17-1-2018W. P. No. 569 ( W ) of 2018 GSTDebangsu Basak, J. Mr. Harpal Singh, Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharya for the petitioners Mr. Indrajit Das Gutpa, Mr. Tapan Bhanja for the respondent … Continue reading “Mrs. Kakali Bera & Another Versus Union of India & Others”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10031","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10031","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10031"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10031\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10031"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10031"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10031"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nLearned Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that, the work order has since been issued. The tender process was not finalized with the first declaration of the petitioner being the lowest tenderer. It was within the power of the respondent authorities to enquire from the participants as to whether the final price quoted by a participant included tax components or not. Such enquiry was made. The successful bidder had quoted a price which included GST. Finding that, the financial implication in accepting the tender of the successful bidder would be less than that of the petitioners, the respondent authorities had accepted such bid of the successful bidder. There is no infirmity in the action taken by the authorities. Mor<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nIn such circumstances, I find no material irregularity in the decision making process of the respondent auth<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n