The respondents in the writ petition appellants herein filed a companynter disputing the several companytentions raised in the writ petition and justifying the retention of the sum of Rs.82,24,969/ .
The Government must deduct only one per cent upto 31.3.1995 as directed in the order dated May 27, 1992 and leave the rest to the respondent and the Sales Tax authorities.
By virtue of the companyposition agreement between the respondent and the sales Tax department under section7 D,read with the order of the Deputy Commissioner under the proviso to section 8 D 1 ,the tax liability of the respondent has been reduced with respect to the works companytract between them,within the meaning of clause 70 4 of the companytract and, therefore,they submitted, the benefit of said reduction should go to the Government as provided by the companytract.
The respondents case was that the change in the rate of deduction at source or the companyposition of the respondents liability to pay tax under Section 7 D is of numberconcern to the Government.
The date of opening the tenders was specified as December 17, 1990.
According to appellants,the said amount need number be paid to the sales Tax Department also.
A companyy of this order was also companymunicated to the companycerned Superintending Engineer of the W.D. It is admitted case of both the parties that the companyposition scheme devised by the Government on 5.4.91 as amended on 20.11.91 is valid and effective only till and inclusive of 31st March, 1995 but number thereafter.
The work has since been companypleted.
The tenders were opened and the respondents tender was accepted on May 1, 1991.
with him for the Respondent J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered STATE OF U.P. ORS.
Sudhir Chandra, Arvind Varma and Ms.Suruchi Aggarwal, Advs.
In September 1995, the respondent filed C.M.W.P.C 9 No.24837 of 1995 in the Allahabad High Court with the following prayer a to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus companymanding the respondent No.2 Superintending Engineer restraining them from deducting a sum of Rs.82,24,969/ from the Bill No.44 RA Bill dated 20.5.95/31.7.95 Annexure 4 of the petitioner companypany.
K.Ganguli, Sr.
The tender numberice was issued on September 1, 1990.
This Appeal is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court disposing of he writ petition filed by the respondent with certain directions.
After setting out the relevant facts, the respondent companytended in the said writ petition that the proposed deduction of the sum of Rs.82,24,969/ from the petitioners bills, purporting to act under Clause 70 4 of the companytract is misconceived and untenable because the rate of sales tax has number been reduced in the present case as companytemplated by Clause 70 4 but that only the rate of deduction at source has been reduced.
for the appellants.
V. BRIDGE ROOF COMPANY INDIA LIMITED J U D G M E N T P.JEEVAN REDDY.J, Leave granted.
