Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Limited vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 April, 2017
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1 April 13, 2017 R.C. W.P. 15029 (W) OF 2016 MAK Engineering Industries Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors.
=-=-=-
Mr.Saumyen Datta Mr.Pranit Bag Mr.Debsoumya Basak Mr.Ashutosh Mukherjee, ...for Petitioner Mr. L.K. Chatterjee Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra, ...for U.O.I The petitioner seeks disbursement of its entitlement under a contract.
The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the pursuant to contract entered into between the first petitioner and the railway authorities, the first petitioner had delivered goods and excisable items to the railways. The Permanent Account Number (PAN) of the first petitioner was cancelled and a new PAN was subsequently furnished. The railway authorities are now refusing to pay the legitimate claim of the petitioner.
The leaned senior advocate appearing for the railway authorities submits that, pursuant to the directions 2 of the Court, the parties had met on March 20, 2017. Even in that meeting, certain compliances required on the part of the petitioner were pointed for the railways to pay. The petitioners are yet to comply therewith. Therefore, the railway authorities cannot be called upon to disburse payments. He submits that, the petitioner is yet to comply with the relevant circulars of the Central Excise and Customs. The petitioner is yet to furnish necessary documents establishing its claim on the of excise duty.
The learned advocate for the petitioner in reply submits that the petitioner is willing to give an undertaking to reimburse railway authorities in the event of any liability being foisted by the Excise authorities on the railway authorities.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.
The claim of the petitioner arises out of a contract. Its claim has not been disbursed by the railway authorities on the ground that the petitioner is yet to comply with the statutory laws to receive its entitlement from the railway authorities. The petitioner is unable to 3 produce any unconditional acknowledgement of liability from the railway authorities for the Court to pronounce that the claim of the petitioner is undisputed. Pursuant to the observations made by the Court, the parties had met on March 20, 2017 and a minutes of the meeting has been prepared. In such meeting, the railway authorities had voiced its anxiety with regard to the non-compliance of the statutory laws by the petitioner. The petitioner is unable to substantiate that the petitioner is not required to comply with those observations made in the minutes dated March 20, 2017.
In such circumstances, I am not minded to interfere in the present writ petition. This order will not prevent the petitioner from availing of his remedies in accordance with law.
W.P. 15029 (W) OF 2016 is disposed of without any order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
( DEBANGSU BASAK, J. )