TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (7) TMI 1262
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i dential accommodations of their officers and staff besides other defence work. In order to get these works done, the petitioners award contracts to various contractors and also supply to them building materials such as cement and steel. The petitioners purchase cement and steel from various reputed concerns not only within the State of Rajasthan but also from outside the State. The petitioners state that they are to pay to the sellers of such materials, sales tax leviable on such sales apart from the actual price of the goods sold. So far as the purchase of building materials within the State is concerned, the petitioners pay to the sellers thereof the sales tax on the value of such building materials within the meaning of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter, referred as "the Act of 1994"). The purchase of goods from outside the State of Rajasthan falls within the ambit of interState trade and commerce, the nonpetitioners are not authorised to levy sales tax on the purchase of such goods as provided under article 286 of the Constitution of India. This way and the manner the petitioners are purchasing the building materials, namely, cement and steel from various supplie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dule material supplied to the contractor are adjusted from the bills of the contractor but the ownership of such goods supplied never change hands and always remains with the department. The reference has been made to the fact that the value of the work includes inter alia, the cost of the stores included in the Schedule incorporated in the works done by the contractor. The contractor is not required to purchase this material from the Government on the prevailing market rate. So what it is submitted that the event of sale never took place between the Government and the contractor with regard to the Schedule material supplied by the petitioner to the contractor. The petitioner then made reference to article 285 of the Constitution and submits that under this provision the property belonging to the Union exempts from payment of tax by the State Government. The Schedule "B" stores is a property belonging to the Union, it is exempted from levy of tax at the hands of State Government in view of article 285 of the Constitution of India and no demand for tax can be raised by the Commercial Taxes Officer of the State against the property belonging to the Union and any such demand is wholly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this tax, 200 per cent penalty was imposed which comes to Rs. 11,29,446 and a further sum of Rs. 90,357 as interest thereon and thus total amount assessed to a sum of Rs. 17,84,556. Hence these petitions. 5.. In view of the order which I propose to pass in these matters I do not consider it to be appropriate, desirable and neces sary to go on and decide the points raised in the petition on merits of the case. However, I cannot restrain myself from expressing my prima facie opinion that the way in which the officers of the sales tax department proceeded in the matter certainly speak of one thing that they are not acting fairly, impartially and honestly in the matter. The manner and the way in which the penalty and the interest demands are created certainly speak of one thing that this is one way to complete the targets of the revenue collection fixed for the financial year 20002001. The Commercial Taxes Officer has acted in a manner which though nothing can be said finally at this stage is not fair and reasonable. He knows well and would have known that this is a matter concerned to the supply of Schedule "B" mate rial to the contractor by the defence personnel for the defence wor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atural Gas Commission v. Collector of Central Excise reported in (1991) 4 JT 158 (SC), their Lordships of the Supreme Court directed the Government of India therein to set up a committee consisting the representative from the concerned Ministry and other departments to ensure that no litigant comes to the court or the Tribunal in between the public undertakings of Central Government or Union of India without the matter having been first examined by the committee and its clearance for litigation. The honourable Supreme Court has further observed that it shall be the obligation of the every court and the Tribunal where such a dispute is raised hereafter to demand a clearance from the committee in case it has not been so pleaded and in the absence of the clearance the proceedings would not be proceeded with. The honourable Supreme Court has observed that the committee shall function under the ultimate control of the Cabinet Secretary but his delegate may look after the matters. The court has expected a quarterly report about the functioning of this system to be furnished to the Registry beginning from 1st January, 1992. 7.. Here the dispute is between the Union of India and the Gover....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rnment of Rajasthan is the biggest litigant in the State. Similarly is the case of Union of India, it has also a good litigation in the courts. If they themselves are fighting in the court on their disputes then it will result in increasing the work of the court as well as unnecessary expenses of the peoples money on fees of coun sel, court fees, procedural expenses and wasting public time. If we go by the facts of these petitions it can safely be inferred that a good amount of the money would have been spent both by the Union of India and Government of Rajasthan in payment of the fees of their counsel, court fees and procedural expenses. Leaving apart these expenses, the officers of both the Union and State would have consumed a considerable and substantial public time for the prepa ration of these matters. Otherwise also it is not in the larger interest of the public that the Union of India and Government of Rajasthan fight for their dispute in the court. It may be bad message to the public. Not only this it also gives a massage that there is no cooperation, understanding and system for resolving the inter se dispute between the Union of India and the State of Rajasthan. Not onl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is expected from them this litigation possibly would not have been before this Court. That way if the matter would have and should have been taken it would have served threefold purposes. One is to unnecessary work before the respondent No. 3, second no litigation before this Court which is already facing serious problem how to overcome this mountaining pendency of cases and thirdly the Union of India and the State of Rajasthan would have saved the public money as well as the time. It is not the first case between Union of India and Government of Rajasthan which has come up before this Court. The cases after cases in between the Union of India and the State or State versus public undertakings or interdepartments are coming up in the courts. Looking to this quantum of the work regarding the disputes in between these classes of the litigants I am of the opinion that if it has already been not done the State of Rajasthan to constitute a high level committee to ensure that no litigation between these classes of litigants comes to the court or the Tribunal without the matter having first been examined by the committee and its clearance for litigation. In case of Oil and Natural Gas Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ployees/officers regarding their grievances of service matters what to say to consider the same on merits. This way the officers are acting it results only in litigation, litigation and litigation. It is not beneficial to the Government as it has to spend huge amount of the peoples money in the litigation. Secondly a good time of its officers is being consumed in this litigation which otherwise could have been better utilised for the other important works. Once a representation/notice of demand of justice is received it has to be considered by the Government. If it is done it may serve two fold purposes. Firstly as said earlier 30 to 40 per cent litigation may not come in the court and that is how the Government may save the substantial money to be spent in the litigation and public time. Secondly after consideration of the matter when the employees/ officers approach to the court, the court may have before it a reasoned order of Government on the grievances made by them to it. A reasoned order may be helpful to the court to finally decide the matter to the extent of 30 to 40 per cent at the preliminary stage itself. That is how the Government may save the money under the head of....