Court denies recall of judgment in FCI dispute, upholds separate contractor-Government issues.

The court declined the request to recall the judgment, noting that the applicant's dispute with the Government over service tax recovery was not directly involved in the petition filed by Food Corporation of India (FCI). The judgment clarified that the decision would not bind the applicant in their defense against the Government or FCI, recognizing separate disputes between FCI and the contractor. Ultimately, the application for recall was refused, emphasizing the independent nature of the applicant's dispute with the Government and concluding the matter without affecting their rights in other disputes.

---

---

Issues:
1. Recall or review of judgment sought by the applicant on the ground of jeopardized vital interests.
2. Recovery of unpaid service tax from Food Corporation of India (FCI) challenged.
3. Applicant not joined as a respondent in the petition filed by FCI.
4. Grievance of the applicant regarding service tax recovery from FCI.
5. Decision on recalling the order and its implications on the applicant's disputes with the Government or FCI.

Analysis:
1. The applicant sought a recall or review of the judgment passed in a special civil application, claiming that their vital interests were jeopardized as they were not joined as a party respondent. The central issue revolved around the recovery of service tax in relation to cargo handling services provided to FCI.

2. FCI challenged the Central Government communications seeking to recover unpaid service tax, contending that the tax was not payable by them as it had already been recovered by the contractor. The judgment observed that the invocation of Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 for recovery from FCI was incorrect, leading to the quashing of the recovery notices issued by the Government.

3. The applicant, as the contractor, was not included as a respondent in FCI's petition. The applicant's grievance was that since FCI had already recovered the service tax from them, they should not be liable to pay it to the Central Government. However, the court found that the issue between FCI and the Government did not directly involve the applicant, and therefore, the order was not to be recalled.

4. The court declined the request for recalling the order, emphasizing that the applicant's dispute with the Government regarding service tax recovery was not the subject matter of the petition. The judgment clarified that the observations made would not bind the applicant in their defense in disputes with the Government or FCI, recognizing the existence of multiple disputes between FCI and the contractor.

5. Ultimately, the application for recall was refused, but it was clarified that the order would not restrict the applicant in their defense in disputes with the Government or FCI. The judgment highlighted the independent nature of the applicant's dispute with the Government, separate from the issues addressed in FCI's petition, thereby concluding the matter.

---