TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (10) TMI 249
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which was fixed for that raw material during the quarters when it was supplied to every other actual user. The case of the petitioner is that the foresaid raw material was illegally and arbitrarily withheld by the respondents at the relevant time and when the supply of raw material was eventually made by STC, respondent No. 6 (pursuant to the orders of this Court) they demanded from the petitioners prices which were prevailing on the date of actual supply. The petitioners have, therefore, submitted that their quota of aforesaid raw-material for the quarters July - September 1984 and October - December 1984 as also for the four quarters of the year 1985 be supplied to them at the price which was fixed for that quarter on the basis of which raw materials were supplied to other actual users and not at the higher prices, as demanded by respondent No. 6, STC. The petitioners have further made a grievance that when after a great deal of pursuation the respondents were ready to supply the raw-material to the petitioners, they began to demand illegally the carrying and other charges from the petitioners. 4. The petitioners, inter alia, carry on the trade and business of manufacturing s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ners directing the respondents to allocate, release, process and supply the quota of split palm stearin fatty acid and palm fatty acid normally allottable to the petitioner from July 1984 onwards and continue to supply further quota periodically without any hitch or demur. By another writ petition No. 489/85 the petitioners in this Court had challenged the debarment order dated 8-8-1984 and on 19-4-1985 this petition was admitted after notice to the respondents and the order of debarment was stayed qua the petitioners. Against this order of debarment the Union of India, respondent No. 1 preferred a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the petitioners before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court on 2-4-1986 was pleased to dismiss the Special Leave Petition filed by the respondents. 8 Further facts are that despite an order of this Court dated 17th December, 1984 followed by another order dated 12th July, 1985 and despite repeated and long drawn correspondence between the petitioners and the respondents, the respondents failed to make the necessary allocation of raw material in favour of the petitioners as a result of which the petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e us is whether the respondents are liable to supply the aforesaid raw materials to the petitioners at the rates prevalent in the quarters July - September, 1984, October - December, 1984 and during the four quarters of 1985, and whether in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the respondents are entitled to claim carrying charges for these supplied despite the fact that it were the respondents who had deliberately withheld the supplies on one or the other pretext despite the orders of this Court dated 17th December, 1984 followed by the order dated 12-7-1985 directing the respondents to release the allocated raw materials periodically without any hitch or demur. The case of the petitioners is that the supplies were withheld illegally and despite orders of the Court and it was only on 12-2-1986 that they were informed by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports that he has instructed STC and DGTD to implement the orders of this Court. 12. We are really surprised that it took such a long time for the respondents to implement the orders of this Court and this they did despite the fact that they were parties to the petition. 13. From the detailed fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....charging the price prevalent at the time of issuance of the allocation order irrespective of the period for which it pertains. It is further stated by respondent No. 6 that in the case of M/s. Vegetable Vitamin Foods Company prices relevant to particular quarters were charged only in compliance with the orders of the Bombay High Court and not in normal course. Respondent No. 6 denied that it is adopting two sets of criteria for supply of raw materials to two similarly situated parties. It is further stated by respondent No. 6 that in certain cases, as per condition of the said allocation order, the respondent is entitled to charge the carrying charges and that this is so only when a party wants accommodation for lifting the raw material and not as a penalty or otherwise. In its affidavit dated 18th July, 1986 it is further submitted that the petitioners are not importing split palm stearin fatty acid as per present policy of the Government. 15. We have earlier referred to our order dated 13th August, 1986 in which Mr. Rattan Lal, Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 had stated that he is under instructions not to file any reply. But despite that we find on record an affidavit by r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he rate of the price for the raw material at that time was less than the rate which was prevalent at the time of actual quarter and the stand that the respondents had taken therein was that they will charge only those rates which were prevalent during the quarters and not what was the rate which was prevalent on the date of supply. 18. In the present case, however, the stand of the respondents has considerably shifted inasmuch as it is stated by respondent No. 6 that according to the policy they would charge the present rates and not the rates which were prevalent during the quarters when entitlement accrued. The respondents are State and we find it is difficult to agree with the stand taken particularly in view of the fact that the petitioners in the present petition are similarly situated as M/s. Vegetables Vitamin Foods Company and the facts of both the case by and large are similar. 19. In view of these facts, we are of the view that the respondents are bound to make supplies of the raw materials for all the aforesaid quarters to the petitioners at the rates prevalent during the quarters when entitlement had accrued in favour of the petitioners. That would be the rate at ....