JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. All the writ petitions are by and between the same parties and the grievance raised is also the same. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act, 1932 having its principal place of business at Guwahati in the District of Kamrup, Assam. The petitioner No. 2 is a partner of the petitioner No. 1 firm. The petitioner-firm carries on business of supply of bamboos to various paper mills inside and outside of State of Assam. It also supplied bamboos to the Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. and Cachar Paper Mill. These writ petitions are concerned with the supply orders dated June 3, 2002, December 10, 2001 and January 31, 2001 respectively with the quantity mentioned in the supply orders at the rate of Rs. 1,695, 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. 2. 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. 3. 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 purchaser, is liable to pay tax under the Act and not the petitioner in respect of the supply made. 4. The respondents have filed their counter-affidavit refuting the contentions raised in the writ petitions. Thus, in a nutshell, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-Corporation being the last purchaser, is liable to pay tax under the Act and not the petitioner in respect of the supply made. 4. The respondents have filed their counter-affidavit refuting the contentions raised in the writ petitions. In the affidavit, it is the stand of the respondent-Corporation that the petitioner was allotted works for supply of bamboos at the rate fixed per metric ton and the rates so fixed are inclusive of "purchase tax" as per notice inviting tenders. Such purchase tax is payable by the respondent-Corporation being the last purchase in the State as per provision of Section 8(1)(d) at the rate of tax specified in Schedule V of the Act. 5. According to the respondents, the purchase tax amount was included by the petitioner in the quoted rate while offering tenders in pursuance to the NITs issued by the respondents. As per the contract entered into by and between the parties, the petitioner was to include purchase tax. The respondents have deducted the amount of tax which was included as purchase tax by the petitioner and such tax deducted as per specific Clause in the contract, was deposited in the Government Treasury in the name of the respondent-Corporation. The respondents in their counter-affidavit have referred to such deposits being made in respect of other such suppliers. 6. The respondents have annexed the contract agreements with the petitioner and have contended that it is in terms of the NIT, the tender submitted by the petitioner and consequential supply orders and contract agreements, purchase tax has been realised from the petitioner and deposited with the Treasury. To that effect, returns have also been submitted by the respondent-Corporation to the Superintendent of Taxes as the respondent-Corporation is registered dealer under the Act having its registration number issued by the taxing authority. As regards the contention of the petitioner that some other similarly situated suppliers have also approached this Court against the deduction of purchase tax being made, the respondents have denied the same and have stated that it is the petitioner-firm alone which has approached this court. As regards the contention of the petitioner that some other similarly situated suppliers have also approached this Court against the deduction of purchase tax being made, the respondents have denied the same and have stated that it is the petitioner-firm alone which has approached this court. According to the respondents, the deductions made are not the deductions as per Section 27 of the Act read with Rule 35 of the AGST Rules, 1993, but the same is pursuant to the process of NIT, supply order, and the specific Clause in the contract agreement in 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. 7. 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. 8. 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 respondent-Corporation. 9. Placing reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court as reported in Subhash Iron & Steel Rolling Industries v. State of Gujarat 1982 50 STC 305 , Mr. Baruah, learned Counsel for the petitioner has made his submission reiterating the stand in the writ petition. On the other hand, Dr. B.P. Todi, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent-Corporation submitted that the writ petitions are misconceived and that the deduction of tax by the respondent-Corporation has been made in terms of the NIT and the contract agreements and that such deduction is not within the purview of Section 27 of the Act and/or Rule 35 of the Rules. Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned State Counsel also made submission in tune with the submissions made by Dr. Todi. Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned State Counsel also made submission in tune with the submissions made by Dr. Todi. Dr. Todi has also referred to the relevant records. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the materials on record. The learned Counsel for the parties have agreed that the purchase made by the respondent-Corporation is the last purchase within the State and the respondent-Corporation is the purchaser. While it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-Corporation being the last purchaser of bamboos, is liable to pay the tax, it is the case of the respondent-Corporation that the price offered by the petitioner being inclusive of all taxes, they are entitled to deduct the tax component from the price offered by the petitioner. There is no dispute that the deduction so made by the respondent-Corporation are being deposited with the State Treasury and the same is also reflected in the returns submitted by the respondent-Corporation to the taxing authority. 11. From the records produced by Dr. Todi and so also the documents annexed to the counter-affidavit, it is seen that acceptance of offer made by the petitioner which culminated to the various supply orders and the contract agreements was inclusive of all taxes. Supply orders made and the rates offered by the petitioner were inclusive of all taxes. It was clearly indicated in the supply orders that in the break up rate of AG ST, at a particular rate was also included. Thus, it was within the knowledge of the petitioner that the rate offered by it was inclusive of all taxes. 12. Section 8 of the Act deals with the charge of tax and rates. Section 8(1)(d) refers to goods specified in Schedule V, at such point or points of purchase and at such rate or rates specified in that Schedule. Serial No. 5 of Schedule V deals with bamboo indicating point of levy of tax and rate of tax. 12. Section 8 of the Act deals with the charge of tax and rates. Section 8(1)(d) refers to goods specified in Schedule V, at such point or points of purchase and at such rate or rates specified in that Schedule. Serial No. 5 of Schedule V deals with bamboo 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. 13. 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 recorded in the company weighbridge as per following derivation. Gross weight- Tare weight net weight If, at any time, during the tenure of the contract the company desires to get done the work of unloading and stacking of the bamboos in the mill yard through some other agencies, the supplier shall have to abide by the decision and in that case a proportionate reduction shall be effected in the rates corresponding to the above job. The tenderer, should quote their rates accordingly and on a later date no correspondence against such decision shall be entertained under any circumstances. 14. Annexure I is the copy of the challan by which the tax has been deposited by the respondent-Corporation to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Taxes. Such deposits are not in the name of the petitioner. The tenderer, should quote their rates accordingly and on a later date no correspondence against such decision shall be entertained under any circumstances. 14. Annexure I is the copy of the challan by which the tax has been deposited by the respondent-Corporation to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Taxes. Such deposits are not in the name of the petitioner. 8.9 per cent is the rate of AGST which has been included in the accepted rate as has been revealed from the records. The calculation has been made on the basis of Clause 5 of Schedule V, under Section 8(i)(d). 15. Section 27 of the Act is the special provision relating to deduction of tax at source in certain cases. Section 27(3) and (4) provides that persons making any deduction of tax and paying it to the account of the State Government shall issue a certificate of tax deduction to the payee in such manner in such a form and within such time as may be prescribed and that any tax so deducted and paid on production of the certificate of tax deduction by the payee be deemed to be tax paid by the payee for the relevant period and shall be given credit in his assessment accordingly. In the instant case, the deductions in question are not within the purview of Section 27 of the Act. Had it been so, the petitioner would have insisted for furnishing the certificate. Such deductions have been made as per tender process and in terms of the contract. The rate offered by the petitioner for supply of bamboo being inclusive of all taxes and the rate of AGST having been specified in the supply order, there was no escape from the liability of the petitioner from the deduction of such tax from the bills submitted by it. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that it is not liable to pay any tax under Section27 of the AGST Act from the payment to be made to the petitioner-firm in respect of the supplies made by it, is not sustainable inasmuch as the deduction made is admittedly under 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. 16. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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 entitled to the amount so deducted as has been claimed by it as it is neither its liability nor the amount has been deducted under Section 27 of the Act. The liability of tax of the respondent was included in the quoted supply rate as per NIT and the tax was deducted pursuant to the specific Clause of the contract. 18. The decision on which Mr. Baruah, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance, is not at all applicable to the instant case. In that case, the assessee (dealer) was registered under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. It had dealings with iron scraps purchased by it as raw materials. It used to convert the iron scraps into bars, billets and rods by a process manufacture as defined in Section 2(17) of the Act. The assessee had not done anything to iron scraps which it had purchased so as to make the aforesaid manufacture. In these circumstances, it was held that the sales of the manufactured bars, billets and rods amounted to resale within the meaning of the expression "resale" as defined in Section 2(26)(iii) of the said Act and accordingly the assessee was held not liable to pay any tax on such resale. In these circumstances, it was held that the sales of the manufactured bars, billets and rods amounted to resale within the meaning of the expression "resale" as defined in Section 2(26)(iii) of the said Act and accordingly the assessee was held not liable to pay any tax on such resale. It was in the said circumstances, the Clause in the assessee's bills "inclusive of sales tax" was interpreted. Same is not the case in hand. The whole tender process, supply order and the contract agreement about which a mention has been made above, clearly indicated that the quoted rate was inclusive of all taxes. Clause 4 of the contract agreement referred to above clearly indicated that the quoted rate should be for supply and delivery per MT(G) of bamboo and inclusive of all charges like deposits, i.e., the purchase tax or sales tax. 19. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that no case of any interference to the action of the respondents in deducting the purchase tax from the bills of the petitioner has been made out and accordingly the writ petitions are dismissed. Interim orders passed in each of the writ petitions stand vacated. 20. Writ petitions are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.