Integrated Induction Power Limited vs. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited
Held
The Court held that the respondent's decision and action in cancelling the tender were not proper. The reasoning was based on the fact that the High Court had previously dismissed a writ petition filed by the L1 bidder from the pre-GST tender. The Court inferred that this dismissal indicated the fairness of the tender process. Consequently, the Court set aside the proceedings of the respondent dated 01.10.2019, which had cancelled the tender. The Court directed the respondent to proceed in accordance with the declaration that was made in favour of the petitioner, implying the continuation of the tender process with the petitioner's bid being considered favorably. No specific provisions of the GST Act were discussed in relation to the cancellation.
Facts
The petitioner participated in a tender for a Rebar Mill, and their bid met the specifications. Subsequently, all qualified bidders were invited to submit reduced price bids considering the impact of GST. The petitioner submitted a fresh bid. However, the L1 bidder from the pre-GST tender objected, alleging unsolicited price reduction by the petitioner. This L1 bidder filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 5074 of 2019) before the High Court, which was dismissed. Following this dismissal, the respondent issued proceedings dated 01.10.2019, cancelling the tender. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging this cancellation order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondent's action of cancelling the tender vide proceedings dated 01.10.2019 is illegal and improper, considering the dismissal of the earlier writ petition filed by the L1 bidder from the pre-GST tender? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the respondent's decision to cancel the tender was improper and illegal, particularly in light of the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition filed by the L1 bidder from the pre-GST tender. The petitioner contended that the court's earlier dismissal implied that the process, including their bid, was fair. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent (revenue/state).
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI
WRIT PETITION No.16048 of 2019
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to declare the proceedings vide Ref.No.VSP/CONT/RBM/19/PROJ(CONTRACTS)/MECH/416, dated 01.10.2019 issued by the respondent, as illegal.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for respondent.
Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner participated in the tender of Rebar Mill and the petitioner’s bid was found to be in accordance with the tender specifications. Later, all the qualified bidders, along with the petitioner, were called for to reduce the price bids on account of GST. The petitioner submitted his fresh bid, but there was an objection by the L1 in Pre-GST tender stating that the petitioner has given unsolicited price reduction and L1 in Pre- GST tender approached the Hon’ble High Court by way of writ petition No.5074 of 2019 and the Court dismissed the writ petition stating that everything was unfair. Later, the respondent issued proceedings vide Ref.No.VSP/CONT/RBM/19/PROJ(CONTRACTS)/MECH/416, dated 01.10.2019 stating that the tender
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.