R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) PETITIONER 's contention is that though its offer was lower but even then the work has been awarded to respondent No. 3. Against the notice inviting tender (NIT) in question -Package B NIT No. 02/PR/ JSEB/06 -07 Singhbhum (West) dated 3.4.2006, four offers were made. On technical and commercial evaluation, petitioner and respondent No. 3 were found eligible. Price bid was opened on 8.8.2006. Respondent No. 3 was found L 1.
(3.) MRS . A.R. Choudhary, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that petitioner indicated the service tax separately as per the terms of NIT whereas respondent No. 3 did not indicate it separately. Had the price bid been compared excluding service tax, petitioner's bid of Rs. 139.51 crores was lower than the bid of respondent No. 3 of Rs. 140.64 crores.;