JUDGMENT & ORDER : Sanjay Karol, J. The petitioner has prayed for the following relief’s:- “(a) It be not declared that the transaction, except for consumables and materials supplied by proforma respondent No.4, involved/envisaged in the contract agreement bearing No.BDA/MM/ONSG/DS/SCON/CH.HR.D.RIGS/II/2007/BN6PC07 003 dated 1-10-2008 entered into by and between the petitioner and the proforma respondent No.4 cannot be construed as a transfer of right to use goods so as to render the transaction exigible to tax under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act 2004; and (b) An appropriate writ or order in the nature of mandamus be not issued commanding or directing the respondents authorities not to insist upon the petitioner to deposit tax, except for consumables and materials supplied by proforma respondent No.4, under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act 2004 in respect of the contract agreement bearing No. BDA/MM/ONSG/DS/SCON/CH.HR.D. RIGS/II/2007/BN6PC07003 dated 1-10-2008 entered into by and between the petitioner and the proforma respondent No.4; and (c) An appropriate writ or order in the nature of mandamus be not issued commanding or directing the respondents, and each of them their servants and/or their agents to forthwith refund the amount of tax deposited by the petitioner Corporation in respect of the contract agreement bearing No. BDA/MM/ONSG/DS/SCON/CH.HR.D. RIGS/II/2007/BN6PC07003 dated 1-10-2008 entered into by and between the petitioner and the proforma respondent No.4; and (d) to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus be not issued directing the respondents authorities to cancel, recall or otherwise forbear from giving effect to the instruction bearing No.F.16051578083/Ch-V/2005/11834-36 dated 28th November, 2008 and memorandum No.F.1- 7(6)-Tax/2002 dated 25/30th June 2005 in respect of contract agreement bearing No. BDA/MM/ONSG/DS/SCON/CH.HR.D.RIGS/II/2007/BN6PC07 003 dated 1-10-2008 entered into by and between the petitioner and the proforma respondent No.4, except for consumables and materials supplied by proforma respondent No.4; and (e) why a writ in the nature of Certiorari be not issued quashing and setting aside the instruction bearing No.F.16051578083/Ch-V/2005/11834-36 dated 28th November, 2008 and memorandum No.F.1-7(6)-Tax/2002 dated 25/30th June 2005 in respect of contract agreement bearing No. BDA/MM/ONSG/DS/SCON/CH.HR.D.RIGS/II/2007/BN6PC07003 dated 1-10-2008 entered into by and between the petitioner and the proforma respondent No.4, except for consumables and materials supplied by proforma respondent No.4; And upon cause or causes being shown and after hearing the parties be pleased to make the rule absolute and/or pass such other orders as Your Lordships shall deem fit and proper. AND During the pendency of the rule Your Lordships may be pleased to stay/suspend the operation of the instruction bearing No.F.16051578083/Ch-V/2005/11834-36 dated 28th November, 2008 and memorandum No.F.1- 7(6)-Tax/2002 dated 25/30th June 2005 in respect of contract agreement bearing No. BDA/MM/ONSG/DS/SCON/CH.HR.D.RIGS/II/2007/BN6PC07003 dated 1-10-2008 entered into by and between the petitioner and the proforma respondent No.4 and further direct the respondent authorities and more particularly Respondent No.2 and 3 not to insist upon the petitioner to deposit tax, except for consumables and materials supplied by proforma respondent No.4, under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act 2004 in respect of the contract agreement bearing No. BDA/MM/ONSG/DS/SCON/CH.HR.D.RIGS/II/2007/BN6PC07003 dated 1-10-2008 entered into by and between the petitioner and the proforma respondent No.4 and/or pass such other orders as Your Lordships shall deem fit and proper.” 2. Agreement dated 01-10-2008 contains the following clauses:- “WHEREAS Operator desires to have drilling operations with integrated Cementing Services METP Services & Mud Services conducted in eligible PEL/ML Areas of Tripura Asset sector of India particularly in the State of Tripura as may be designated by Operator AND WHEREAS Contractor is owner of “Two nos. of 2000 HP Rig ZJ 70 D” (hereinafter referred to as “Drilling Unit”) and is capable & willing to perform such drilling operations with Integrated Cementing Services & Mud Services on charter hire basis with Drilling Unit and other equipments and its personnel as per Scope of Work at Exhibit A. xxx xxx xxx xxx 1.4 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. The Contractor shall deploy the Drilling Unit and other services at the designated first drilling location nominated by Operator, to commence operations within the stipulated mobilization period as per clause no. 1.6 herein below. If the Contractor fails to deploy the Drilling Unit and other services within aforesaid period, the Operator as its sole remedy can recover from contractor as ascertained and agreed Liquidated Damages and not by way of penalty a sum equivalent to 1/2 % of one year’s Operating Day Rate per Rig for each week of delay or part thereof subject to maximum of 5%. Operator shall have at any time but before Commencement Date, the right to terminate the Contract in the event Contractor fails to deploy the Drilling Unit and other Services at the first drilling location within aforesaid period, without prejudice to any other clauses including LD Clause. xxx xxx xxx xxx 3.4.1 OPERATING DAY RATE. Operator shall have at any time but before Commencement Date, the right to terminate the Contract in the event Contractor fails to deploy the Drilling Unit and other Services at the first drilling location within aforesaid period, without prejudice to any other clauses including LD Clause. xxx xxx xxx xxx 3.4.1 OPERATING DAY RATE. Contractor shall be paid an Rig Operating Day Rate of Rs.11,80,000 (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Eighty Thousand Only) payable from the commencement date and at all times during the term of the Agreement, except when specially otherwise provided for in this Agreement. 3.4.2 NON-OPOERATING DAY RATE/STAND BY RATE. Contractor shall be paid a Non-operating Day Rate/Stand by Rate of Rs.10,62,000 (Rupees Ten Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand Only) when the Drilling Unit is not operating and is either waiting for materials/orders/instructions/programme/waiting on weather/waiting on cement to set/or carrying out fishing operations except where otherwise provide for in this Agreement. However, in case of Fishing Operations, i. If the fishing operation is due to the fault of contractors (due to contractor equipment/tool). No rate will be paid. ii. If the fishing operation is not due to fault of contractor (not due to contractors equipment and tools). NODR will be paid. 3.4.3 INTER-LOCATION MOVEMENT CHARGES: Contractor shall be paid lump-sum charges of Rs.1,12,00,000 (Rupees One Crore Twelve Lakhs Only) towards each inter-location movement charges which shall include de-rigging, loading, rig transportation upto 10 Km. un-loading and rig-up at new location. In case inter-location movement involves Rig transportation more than 10 Km. transportation in excess of first 10 Km. shall be paid at the Rig transportation charge of Rs.1,40,000 (Rupees One Lakh Forty Thousand Only) per km. No other charges shall be payable during Inter-Location Moves. 3.4.4 INDIVIDUAL SERVICE DAY RATE (SDR). Contractor shall be paid individual Service Day Rate (SDR) for the other services covered under the scope of the contract from the Commencement Date and at all times during the term of the agreement, except when specifically otherwise provided for in this Agreement, as per the rate given below: Service Day Rate for Cementing Services Rs.88,000/- Service Day Rate for Mud Services Excluding METP Rs.1,00,000/- Service Day Rate for METP Rs.36,000/- 3. Learned counsel appearing for both the sides state that the issues involved in the present petition are squarely covered with the decision rendered by this Court in Quippo Oil and Gas Infrastructure Ltd. vs. State of Tripura and others, reported in (2015) 1 TLR 38 as modified by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4391/2014 titled as State of Tripura & others vs. M/S. H.R.S. Agency & another, and in Civil Appeal No.4392/2014 titled as State of Tripura & others vs. M/S. H.L.S. Asia Limited, and in Civil Appeal No.1499/2017 titled as the State of Tripura & others vs. M/S. IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services Ltd. & another. 4. It is also not disputed that the directions contained in Para- 34, 35 and 36 of the judgment rendered by this Court in Quippo Oil and Gas Infrastructure Ltd. (supra) remained unmodified and as such, are applicable to the facts of the instant petition qua the writ petitioner and needs to be implemented. The said directions read as under:- “34. After carefully going through the contracts we are of the view that the contracts are mainly for hiring of services. There may be a very small element of transfer of right to use goods but according to us the predominant portion of the contract relates to hiring of services and not to transfer of right to use the goods. We are aware that the dominant nature test is not to be used in composite contracts falling within the ambit of Article 366(29A) but from the reading of the contract it is more than apparent that the intention of the parties was to treat the contract as a contract for hiring of services. Moreover, it is impossible to divide the contract into two separate portions. Every element of the digging directional wells and Mobile Drilling Rig service contains a major element of provisions of services. In such an eventuality it is virtually impossible to divide the contract. It is not possible to work out the value of the right to use goods transferred under the contract. In cases, where the contracts are easily divisible or where the parties have by agreement clearly indicated what is value of the service part and what is value of the transfer of right to use goods part, the contract may be divided. In cases, where the contracts are easily divisible or where the parties have by agreement clearly indicated what is value of the service part and what is value of the transfer of right to use goods part, the contract may be divided. We are in agreement with the Delhi High Court that when the contract cannot be divided with exactitude then the Central Law must prevail. 35. Parties have also been paying service tax and if the State is allowed to tax any portion of the value of the contract then there has to be a proportionate refund of the service tax to that extent. This cannot be done without hearing the Union of India. If there is any dispute between the State or the Union of India then they must resolve it between themselves. The W.P(C) No. 315 of 2010, W.P(C) No. 277 of 2011 W.P(C) No. 278 of 2011 Page 31 of 31 31 petitioners or the ONGC cannot be made liable to pay both the taxes for the same transaction. 36. In view of the above discussion, we are clearly of the view that in all the cases the transactions do not amount to sale within the meaning of the TVAT Act, 2004. Therefore, all the writ petitions have to be allowed. The State is not entitled to levy any sales tax or Value Added Tax on the transactions in question. It is, therefore, directed that the amount of tax, already deducted and received by the State shall be refunded to the petitioners along with statutory interest latest by 28th February, 2015. In case the amount is not refunded by that date then the State shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum with effect from 1st January, 2015.” 5. Under these circumstances, on the basis of joint statement, we dispose of the present petition making the directions contained in Quippo Oil and Gas Infrastructure Ltd. (supra) applicable mutatis mutandis to the instant petitioner, save and except that the State shall positively refund the excess amount, if so deposited, on or before 30.6.2019. 6. We clarify that if the amount is not paid within the said period, then only the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 12% as stipulated under the provisions of Section 45 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004.