9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,981 and 1,500 per MTG respectively. The question that has been raised in the writ petitions is as to whether the respondents were entitled to deduct the purchase tax from the bills of the petitioners in respect of supplies made pursuant to the supply orders. Referring to Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, the petitioners have contended that the respondent-Corporation being the last purchaser of the bamboos supplied by the petitioners, is liable to pay tax under the said Act on the purchase value of the supplies made by the petitioner-firm and that the firm itself is not liable to pay any tax under the Act and thus, the question of deduction of any tax under section 27 of the Act from the payment to be made to the petitioner-firm does not arise. The petitioner-firm has contended that the rate fixed by the Hindustan Corporation Ltd., for supply of bamboos includes basic cost and transportation cost inclusive of all taxes and thus the term "inclusive of tax" cannot lead to a conclusion that what was recoverable from the petitioner's bills included the recovery of tax. Thus, in a nutshell, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-Corporation being the last ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms of which the petitioner-firm has charged tax other than the supply price. The respondents have contended that the petitioner knew it fully well that same would be deducted as the rates quoted by the petitioner and all other similarly situated suppliers were inclusive of taxes to be deducted by the respondent-Corporation. It is the agreed case of the respondents that they are the last purchaser in the State and the amounts deducted from the petitioner is not the recovery as alleged from the cost of the petitioner's supply value and in fact, the amount of tax was included as per the provision of the NIT. According to the respondents, if no deduction is made pursuant to NIT and the contract same would amount to undue enrichment of the petitioner. I have heard Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned State Counsel representing the State respondents. I have also heard Dr. B.P. Todi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. D. Buragohain, learned counsel representing the respondentCorporation. Placing reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court as reported in Subhash Iron & Steel Rolling Industries v. State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indicating point of levy of tax and rate of tax. "Sale price" as defined in section 2(34) of the Act means in respect of sale falling under sub-clause (ii) of clause 33, the consideration received or receivable by the dealer in respect of any works contract executed or under execution by him as increased by the market price of any goods supplied or to be supplied to him free of cost or the excess of the market price over the price charged on any goods supplied or to be supplied to him at a concessional rate by the contractee or any other person for use, application or appropriation in the works contract. Annexure 2 contract agreement containing the terms and conditions referring to rate under clause No. 4 states as follows: "Rate: Quoted rate should be for supply and delivery of per MT (G) of bamboo at mill site, Panchgram and inclusive of all charges like taxes i.e., purchase tax or sales tax levied by Assam/levies, loading, unloading, stacking, etc. Payment will be made on the basis of 'Net weight' recorded at the mill's weighbridge. The weighment will be determined by the differences between the gross weight and the actual weight of the empty truck r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 27 of the Act. Had it been so, the petitioner would have demanded certificate of deduction from the respondent-Corporation so as to get the benefit of deduction at source while submitting by way of credit in its assessment. If the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted, as has been rightly contended by the respondents, it would be a case of undue enrichment. Here is a case in which the petitioner in its rate offered included all taxes and now for the purpose of getting the payment of bills contends that the respondent-Corporation cannot deduct the purchase tax from the bills and that the respondent-Corporation being the last purchaser in the State, is liable for payment of said tax. If the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted, same will be contrary to the whole tender process and the contract agreement entered into by and between the parties. As noticed above, the amounts deducted while making payment to the petitioner are always deposited in the name of the respondent-Corporation in the Government Treasury through treasury challans and the amounts are duly reflected in the returns submitted by the respondent-Corporation. The petitioner-firm is not ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
