FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS. v. PRADIP KUMAR RAY
WA/4/2023 · 2025-01-26
Kaushik Goswami
Review Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 10825 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 10825 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010078632020
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/4/2023 1.FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS.
REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR 16-20 BARAKHAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI-1.
2: THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (CE) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE ASSAM REGION PALTANBAZAR, GUWAHATI- 781001 DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM.
3: THE MANAGER, ACCOUNTS FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE, ASSAM REGION PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001 DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM VERSUS PRADIP KUMAR RAY (CONTRACTOR), PAWAN KUMAR ROAD, WARD NO. 5, P.O. AND DIST.- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. For the Appellant(s) : Mr. P.K. Roy, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. S.K. Chakraborty, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : None appears.
– B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
27.01.2025 (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)
Mr. P.K. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant FCI has
Page No.# 2/2 submitted that in the contract agreement executed between the FCI and the respondent, as per Clause 36A, Service Tax was to be governed as per Circular No.09/2012 issued by the FCI Taxation Cell and this fact has escaped the notice of the learned Single Judge and a confusion was created because the Circular No.09/2012 was not available on record. Learned senior counsel for the appellant FCI has, therefore, submitted that since it is a factual error, the appellants are willing to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge to clarify the fact situation. At this stage, learned senior counsel for the appellant FCI has, on instruction, submitted that he may be allowed to withdraw this writ appeal with liberty to the writ appellants to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge. In view of the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the appellant FCI, this writ appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the writ appellants to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge.
JUDGE CHIEF
JUSTICE Comparing Assistant