IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.16590 of 2009 ====================================================== M/S KAMAC ENGINEER'S PVT. LTD. R/O 55, Mangturam Road, Siliguri-734005, District-Darjeeling, West Bengal through its Power of Attorney Holder and Authorized Signatory Mr. Sunil Kumar Choudhary, S/O Sri Ramniwash Choudhary, R/O Amlatola Katihar, P.S.- Katihar, Distt.- Katihar (Bihar). .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Road Construction Department, New Secretariat, Patna 2. The Executive Engineer, N.H. Division, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Purnea, Distt.- Purnea 3. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Commercial Taxes, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 4. The Joint Commissioner, Department of Commercial Taxes, Purnea Circle Purnea, Distt.- Purnea .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Narayan Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Vikash Kumar, A.C. to AAG-I ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3. 15-07-2011 The petitioner, a Civil Contractor has challenged the action of the respondent authorities in deducting 4 per cent of the contractual amount against the Value Added Tax payable by the petitioner. It is the claim of the petitioner that part of the Patna High Court CWJC No.16590 of 2009 (3) dt.15-07-2011 2 / 2 2 contractual amount comprises the cost of the labour. Such amount is not exigible to the Value Added Tax under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005. Nevertheless, the respondent authorities continue to deduct 4 per cent of the entire contractual amount. Learned advocates agree that the matter at issue is governed by the judgment of this Court in the matter of Abdul Majid Khan & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [2010 (3) P.L.J.R. 782], more particularly paragraphs 37 and 38 thereof. In view of the decision of this court the petitioner may pursue the remedy before the concerned authority/s. Subject to the above observation the petition is disposed of. The parties will bear their own cost. Pawan Kumar/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)