Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 595 (GAU)

BRAHMAPUTRA CONSORTIUM LTD v. STATE OF ASSAM

2014-06-05

A.K.GOSWAMI, A.M.SAPRE

body2014
JUDGMENT : - A.M.Sapre, J. The decision rendered in this writ petition shall also govern the disposal of connected writ petition being WP(C) No.3648/2006 because both the writ petitions involve identical issues. In WP(C) No.3647/2006, the writ petitioner has claimed following relief: “In the premises aforesaid it is respectfully prayed that Your Lordships be pleased to call for the records of the case and issue a rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a Writ in the nature of Certiorari and/or a Writ of like nature should not be issued and the impugned action of the respondents in attempting to deduct sales tax at source from the bills submitted by the petitioner in respect of supply of man size river boulders weighing 40 Kgs to 70 Kgs in terms of the contract agreement No.CE/CON/Bogineel/River Bldr./2005/16 dated 19.10.2005 executed by and between the petitioner and the respondents North East Frontier Railway authorities should not be declared illegal, ultravires and without jurisdiction and as to why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other Writ of like nature should not be issued directing the respondents and each and every one of them not to deduct sales tax at source from the bills submitted by the petitioner in respect of the quarrying and supply of man size river boulders weighing 40 Kgs to 70 Kgs in terms of the contract Agreement No.CE/CON /Bogineel/River Bldr./2005/16 dated 19.10.05 executed by and on cause or causes as may be shown by the respondents and after hearing the parties be pleased to make the Rule absolute and/or pass such further order/orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper. -And- Pending disposal of the Rule be further pleased to direct the respondent North East Frontier Railway authorities not to deduct any tax from the bills submitted by the petitioner for quarrying and supply of man size river boulders weighing 40 Kgs to 70 Kgs in terms of the contract agreement No.CE/CON/Bogibeel/River Bldr. /2005 /15 dated 19.10.05 executed by and between the petitioner and the North East Frontier Railway authorities and/or pass such further interim order/orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.” So far as WP(C) No. 3648/2006 is concerned, the relief claimed therein is reproduced herein below for perusal. /2005 /15 dated 19.10.05 executed by and between the petitioner and the North East Frontier Railway authorities and/or pass such further interim order/orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.” So far as WP(C) No. 3648/2006 is concerned, the relief claimed therein is reproduced herein below for perusal. “In the premises aforesaid it is respectfully prayed that Your Lordships be pleased to call for the records of the case and issue a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a Writ in the nature of Certiorari and/or a Writ of like nature should not be issued and the impugned action of the respondents in attempting to deduct sales tax at source from the bills submitted by the petitioner in respect of supply of crushed blasted stone boulders in terms of the contract agreement No.CE/CON/Bogineel/Boulder/2004/15 dated 01.09.05 executed by and between the petitioner and the respondents North East Frontier Railway authorities should not be declared illegal, ultravires and without jurisdiction and as to why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other Writ of like nature should not be issued directing the respondents and each and every one of them not to deduct sales tax at source from the bills submitted by the petitioner in respect of the quarrying and supply of blasted stone boulders in terms of the contract agreement No.CE/CON/Bogineel/Boulders/2004/15 dated 01.09.05 executed by and on cause or causes as may be shown by the respondents and after hearing the parties be pleased to make the Rule absolute and/or pass such further order/orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper. -And- Pending disposal of the Rule be further pleased to direct the respondent North East Frontier Railway authorities not to deduct any tax from the bills submitted by the petitioner for quarrying and supply of blasted stone boulders in terms of the contract agreement No. CE/CON/Bogibeel/Boulders/2004/15 dated 01.09.05 executed by and between the petitioner and the North East Frontier Railway authorities and/or pass such further interim order/orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.” Notice of this petition was served on the respondent (Sales Tax Department). They are duly represented. Heard Mr. S Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, Finance for the respondents. They are duly represented. Heard Mr. S Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, Finance for the respondents. It may not be necessary to state the factual controversy involved in the petition because having regard to the nature of the controversy raised by the writ petitioner, coupled with the relief claimed in the writ petition quoted supra, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner’s grievance can always be looked into and adjudicated upon more appropriately in the assessment proceedings under the State/Central Sales Tax Act/VAT Act by the assessing authority. Indeed, the issue regarding tax liability, tax paid in the form of deduction at source on several goods in execution of works contracts etc during the years in question and lastly the issue regarding the quantum of taxable turnover are required to be gone into and decided by the assessing authority under the State Sales Tax Act in accordance with law and then by the appellate authority specified in the Act and lastly by the High Court either in appeal/reference /writ proceedings, as the case may be, at the instance of dealer or/and Revenue. These issues cannot be tried for the first time in writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. We also note that no abstract jurisdictional issue is raised which may attract the jurisdiction of the High Court at the initial stage itself. We, therefore, dispose of these petitions with these observations and without recording any finding on issues raised by the petitioners in these writ petitions. Let the assessment proceedings may be over in accordance with law within six months, if not so far completed by the assessing authorities. All interim orders, passed in these writ petitions are recalled to enable the concerned assessing authorities to proceed in the matter in the light of what is observed above. A copy of the order be placed on record before the concerned authorities. No cost.