N G MEGHACHANDRA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions involving similar nature issues have been considered together and are taken up for disposal by this common order.

(2.) We have heard Mr. HL Shangreiso, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 126 of 2013, Ms. P Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 16 of 2013, learned Advocate General Dr. BP Todi, assisted by Mr. KP Bhattacharjee, GA for the contesting respondents related with the State of Meghalaya in both the petitions and Mr. R Deb Nath, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 2 in W.P. (C) No. 126 of 2013. In W.P. (C) No. 16 of 2013, nobody has appeared on behalf of respondents No. 4 to 7, to whom notices were sent in the year 2013. Although there is no clear report of their service, but learned counsel for the petitioner has candidly submitted that against them, no relief on the principal aspects is being sought and they had only been the proforma parties herein.

(3.) Put in a nutshell, the basic assertion of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that while making payments of bills against their works contracts, deduction at source, of Value Added Tax ['VAT'] payable to the State of Meghalaya per Section 106 of the Meghalaya Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'/'the Act of 2003'], could only be on the 'taxable turnover' after providing for deduction as per Section 5 thereof and not on the 'total value of the work contracts'.