IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5036 of 2008 RIPU SUDAN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, J.C. to AAG IX ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal -------- Dated, the 4th August, 2008. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents not to deduct sales tax at the rate of 4% and royalty from the total value of the bills submitted by him and for refund the amount deducted from his bills. The details of these bills are given in paragraph (1) of the writ petition. 2. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner for execution of work (set out in paragraph 6 of the writ petition) purchased the material (stone, sand etc.) from the lessees who had already paid royalty and sale tax on the said material, and, therefore, from the bills submitted by the petitioner, sales tax and royalty, could not have been deducted. The counsel, in support of his contention, relied upon a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of M.P. Contractors Sangh, Indore and ors. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and ors. (A.I.R. 1987 Madhya Pradesh 74). He - 2 - also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs. The District Mining Officer and Cess Collector (Mining) and State of Bihar (1981 PLJR 86). 3. We thoughtfully considered the submissions of the counsel and perused the decisions cited by him. It is seen from the payment certificates placed on record by the petitioner, that sales tax and royalty (mining tax) have been deducted from the bills submitted by the petitioner. However, the material that has been placed on record by the petitioner does not lead to any firm conclusion that the sales tax and royalty have already been paid in respect of the material (stone, sand etc.) put in use by the petitioner for the execution of work allotted to him. An enquiry by this Court in its high prerogative writ jurisdiction, cannot be held as to whether in respect of the material (stone, sand etc.) used by the petitioner in execution of work, sales tax and royalty, have been paid or not. As a matter of fact, from the entire writ petition, it is not discernible that the petitioner made any representation to the concerned authority with the supporting material that the sales tax and royalty in respect of the material used for execution of work have already been paid. 4. We, therefore, find no justifiable reason to entertain this writ petition. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. However, this will not preclude the petitioner in making representation duly supported by the documentary evidence that in respect of the material used for execution of work, sale tax and royalty - 3 - has already been paid. We observe that if such a representation is made, the concerned authority shall examine the same and if any amount is found payable to the petitioner, that shall be paid to him. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, he may pursue ordinary remedy of civil suit for redressal of his grievance. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/