WP(C) 3661/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. UPADHYAY Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department appearing for the respon dents. Facts, leading to the filing of this writ petition, may be summarized, as follow s: Pursuant to the NIT floated by the respondent authorities for hire of services o f vehicles, work orders dated 15.09.2003 and 10.08.2005 were issued to the petit ioner and subsequently, respective contract agreements(annexure-I and IA to the writ petition) were also entered into between the respondent authorities and the petitioner for hire of vehicles. As per terms and conditions of the contract, a lthough there was no provision for deduction of sales tax at sources, but, the o fficials of the respondent corporation have started deduction of value added tax from the bills of the petitioner. Though the petitioner informed the respondent corporation that no such deduction should be made as transactions between the p etitioner and the corporation are not eligible to value added tax under the Assa m Value Added Tax Act,2003, and had also represented against the same(Annexure-I I to the writ petition), however, the petitioner reasonably apprehends that the respondent corporation may continue to deduct such tax at source from the bills payable in favour of the petitioner. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that such transactions flowing from the said contract between the petitioner an d the respondent corporation do not qualify as sale within the meaning of the Ac t of 2003 and as such, the same being outside the ambit of the definition of sal e, deduction of tax under the provisions of the Act of 2003, do not arise. The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned action of the re spondent corporation in deducting tax at source from the bills of the petitioner under the provisions of the Act of 2003. The petitioner has prayed for issuing a direction to the respondent authorities to refund the amount of tax collected by way of deduction at source and not to d educt tax at source from the bills of the petitioner under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Further from the facts narrated in the writ petition, it is clear that the contr actor does not have exclusive dominion over the vehicles in question during the contract period, though during the aforesaid period, at times, physical possessi on of the vehicles may come back to the petitioner. Such temporary possession of the vehicle does not mitigate against the transfer of right to use the vehicles , and exempt it from the taxable event, in terms of Article 366(29-A)(d) of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the respondents-Finance Department has submitted that this c ase is covered by the decision of the Division Bench this Court rendered in WA N o.138/2007 : Dipak Nath vs. ONGC Ltd. & Ors. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded to the above submission made by the learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department. In view of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the pet itioners and also in view of the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court i n Dipak Nath case(supra), the instant writ petition does not merit consideration by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I pass no order as to cost.