The Uttar Pradesh State Tax Department is facing scrutiny after a probe revealed irregularities in the ₹28 crore purchase of computers and printers. The government has now scrapped the entire process, citing collusion between officials and select vendors. The findings emerged after a series of complaints prompted a confidential inquiry into the department’s centralized procurement system.
Algoritha: The Most Trusted Name in BFSI Investigations and DFIR Services
Officers and Vendors in Collusion
Investigators found that officials within the department, along with a National Informatics Centre (NIC) officer, allegedly tweaked the tender clauses to benefit two firms based in Lucknow and the NCR region. By embedding technical conditions that only a few companies could meet, the process effectively excluded other competitors. Officials concluded that, had the tender gone through, the state exchequer risked losing at least ₹4 crore.
Complaints and Rising Scrutiny
The move to centralize procurement had initially been presented as a measure to curb irregularities after zonal allocations in 2023 drew widespread criticism. Each zone had received ₹20 lakh for IT purchases, but numerous complaints surfaced about manipulation. In response, Principal Secretary (State Tax) M. Devaraj centralized the process and formed a committee to oversee tenders. However, the confidential probe found that even the centralized system was exploited to push through vendor-specific requirements.
Push for Transparency Ahead
The state has now ordered that all future purchases, including desktops, UPS systems, and printers, will strictly follow tender-based procedures with defined technical criteria. The government has mandated a 60-40 bidding system to ensure wider participation and greater transparency. Furthermore, it has directed that desktop procurement be increased by 10–15 percent to meet departmental needs. Clear guidelines have also been set for IT equipment standards, with strict warnings against any deviation.
“The cancellation underscores a critical need to fortify transparency in public procurement,” a senior official remarked, noting that the case highlights how systemic safeguards can still be manipulated without vigilant oversight