SANTOSH KUMAR HARLALKA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above civil rules involve common questions of facts and law, therefore, I purpose to dispose of these civil rules by a common judgment.

(2.) PETITIONERS in these petitions challenge the letter No. 6591 dated August 5, 1993, issued by the 3rd respondent - the Superintendent of Taxes. Unit-D, Guwahati, directing the General Manager (Construction), NF Railway, Maligaon, to deduct taxes at source from the payment to be made to the petitioners' bills, and also the letters issued by the 4th respondent - the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer (Construction), NF Railway, instructing the railway authorities to deduct taxes with retrospective effect. The facts for the purpose of disposal of these civil rules may be stated as follows :

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to give direction to 4th respondent to deduct sales tax at source as the rate and the manner of deduction of tax of source have not been prescribed as envisaged in the Assam General Sales Tax Act. 1993 (for short "the Act"). In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioners have drawn my attention to section 27 of the Act. Under the said section, every person (not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family) responsible for making any payment or discharging any liability on account of any amount payable for the transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in a works contract specified in Schedule VI or for the transfer of the right to use any goods specified in Schedule VI for any purpose are liable to pay sales tax and the authority is empowered to deduct tax at source. Sub-section (b)(1) of section 27 runs thus :