2011 (11) TMI 593

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ved by order dated February 1, 2010 passed by the respondent-CTO, Barmer, demanding a proportionate amount of contract amount of Rs. 67,56,546 vide annexure 8 on account of short fall of the instalment amount of contract for 253 days reducing the contractual amount of Rs. 1,58,18,000 for the period April 23, 2010 to April 22, 2011 reducing the same proportionately for 253 days for the period April 23, 2010 to December 31, 2010 to Rs. 1,09,64,258 since the petitioner-contractor paid for this period only a sum of Rs. 47,08,200 thus, the balance amount along with interest was Rs. 67,56,546 sought to be recovered by passing the said order dated February 1, 2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nikhil Dungawat, urged that the cont....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by him, such excess deposited amount shall be refunded to the contractor." The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since most of the period of the contract for which the petitioner-contractor operated was a off-season, and the collection of tax was much lesser up to December 31, 2010, whatever collection of tax was made, was duly deposited with the respondent-Department, however, when peak season of the business came, the contract was prematurely terminated vide the aforesaid notification annexure 5 dated December 31, 2010. He, therefore, submitted that condition of clause 12 and rule 44 of demanding the higher of the two, viz., instalment of contract amount and actual collection of the tax, could not be enforced against th....