SHRI ASHISH KUMAR DEY Vs. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset, we are constrained to observe that the law of pleadings with regard to writ petition is and should be a concise statement of relevant facts and of law. Apparently, unmindful of this salutary principle, the petitioners in both the writ petitions have chosen to plead many unnecessary facts and at the same time have left out the vital points so much so that it becomes imperative on our part to imagine by ourselves as to what they really want from this Court. We at first thought of releasing the cases from CAV and asked the petitioners to furnish better and further particulars. However, thanks to the counter-affidavit filed by the Staterespondents, the important facts missing in the cases of the petitioners have now been brought to our notice. This, therefore, obviates the necessity to re-hear the cases.

(2.) Following the decisions of this Court as affirmed by the Apex Court holding that the contract for transportation of foodgrains executed for and on behalf of the FCI did not involve transfer of right to use goods within the meaning of Art. 366(29A)(b) of the Constitution, the amounts deducted from the bills of the petitioners became refundable to them. The FCI admittedly neither deposited the entire amount with the State-respondents during the statutory period nor refunded the same to the petitioners when legitimately due to them. The common question of law involved in both the writ petitions is whether the Food Corporation of India (FCI) is liable to pay interest on the amount deducted by it from the bills of the petitioners which they failed to deposit with the State-respondents during the period stipulated by sub-Rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Tripura Value Added Tax rules, 2005 ("the Rules" for short)? Before proceeding further, it may not be out of place to reproduce below the provisions relating to the TDS from the bills of a contractor and the manner in which the amount so deducted is to be dealt with. They are provided for in Rule 7 of the Rules, which read thus:

(3.) Plainly stated, a combined reading of sub-Rules (2) and (3) of Rule 7 of the Rules so extracted plainly shows that the person responsible for making payment (FCI in this case) to any person (the petitioner in this case) is required to deduct from the bills of the petitioner any sum payable for the transfer of the right to use any goods other than goods in the exempted list of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 ("the Act" for short) and that the amount so deducted shall be deposited into the Government Treasury by the person making such deduction within 7 days of the month following that in which the deduction is made. Sub-Rule 11 mandates that if such person fails to make the deduction or, after making the deduction fails to deposit the amount so deducted, he shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rates contained in Sec. 44 (it should be read as "Section 45") of the Act on the amount so deducted.