- (1.) The Deputy Commissioner (Admn.), Commercial Taxes, Udaipur under a notice dated September 20, 2010 invited tenders for collection of revenue as per Section 77 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 read with Rule 44 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Rules, 2006 for the commodities bajri and building stones except marbles and granite. As per Clause 14 of the terms and conditions for the tenders invited, no tender could have been accepted in the event of any existing due of Department against a tenderer. The Petitioner, by positively denying for any such due, submitted application for the grant of contract to collect revenue for bajri as well as for the building stones. On September 28, 2010 the tenders were opened and the contract was finalized in favour of the Petitioner, accordingly, the Petitioner deposited half part of the expected annual tax recovery on September 30, 2010 with Respondents, as per Clause 17 of the terms of tender. On the same day the Commercial Taxes Officer (CTO), Udaipur instructed the Petitioner to satisfy the earlier demand due in a tune of Rs. 11,41,479 but as per the Respondents the demand letter aforesaid was not accepted by the representative of the Petitioner-company, thus, the same was sent for service by registered post acknowledge due. On October 1, 2010 a recommendation was made by the Commercial Taxes Officer to the Deputy Commissioner for not awarding contract to the Petitioner as there was a violation of Clause 14 of the tender conditions. Accordingly, the tender submitted by the Petitioner was cancelled and a fresh notice inviting tenders was issued on October 13, 2010. The fresh tenders were opened on October 27, 2010 and subsequent thereto these two petitions for writ are preferred claiming following reliefs: (i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the tender notification issued on October 13, 2010 (annexure 6) and the proceeding undertake in pursuance thereof may kindly be quashed and set aside, (ii) The Respondent-authorities may kindly be directed to complete the remaining proceedings in pursuance of the tender notification dated September 20, 2010 (annexure 1) and execute the contract and award to Petitioner-company and to allow him to carry out the work.
(2.) The case of the Petitioner is that the Respondents before terminating the contract or rejection of the tender application submitted by the Petitioner-company have not at all appreciated the fact that the demand due already stood satisfied on October 11, 2010, that is prior to inviting fresh tenders on October 13, 2010. As per the Petitioner, though a demand of Rs. 11,41,479 was made by the Respondents, however, after due verification of accounts, an amount of Rs. 8,33,280 was adjusted and remaining due of Rs. 3 lacs and odd was deposited on October 11, 2010. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner asserted that the amount due was determined on October 6, 2010 and that was deposited on October 11, 2010, therefore, no adequate reason was available with the Respondents to issue fresh notice inviting tenders.
(3.) Per contra, as per the Respondents, the Petitioner-company was facing a default not only at the time of submission of tender but even on the date the tenders were opened. Therefore, the tender submitted by it was rightly cancelled as per Clause 14 of the tender conditions. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Respondent-Commercial Taxes Department that a demand of Rs. 11,41,479 was created against the Petitioner against the contract of revenue collection for the year 2006-07, against which an appeal was preferred but that came to be dismissed on June 4, 2010. An application then was preferred for rectification of the assessment under Section 33 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act and by acting upon that on October 6, 2010 the amount of Rs. 8,33,280 was adjusted, however, a sum of Rs. 3,08,200 was yet outstanding and that was deposited only on October 11, 2010. Prior to it, the tenders were considered on October 28, 2010, a notice thereafter was given to the Petitioner on October 30, 2010 to satisfy the demand but no action was taken, as such, a departmental liability was due against the Petitioner. While meeting with the defence taken by the Respondents it is submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that, as a matter of fact, the departmental dues were determined at the first instance on October 6, 2010, therefore, no occasion was there for the Petitioner to satisfy the demand prior to that.;