SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(Pat) 53

NAZIR AHMAD, UDAY SINHA
Geeta Prasad Singh And Co. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent


Judgment

Uday Sinha, J.

1. These four writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution raise common questions of law. They have, therefore, been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The questions agitated at the Bar are pure questions of law. They relate to the ambit/vires of notifications (annexures 1, 1/A and 1/B, all dated 7th November, 1984). As a follow up of those annexures, the Bihar Government in the Finance (Commercial Taxes) Department issued notice (annexure 2) whereby all Government departments, Board and Organisations were directed to deduct 4 per cent of the bills of all contractors engaged in works contract. In essence, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of annexures 1 series and annexure 2. Since the questions agitated are pure questions of law, it is not necessary to advert to the additional prayer of the petitioners in the different writ petitions for quashing the deductions in the bills of the petitioners.

3. The petitioners are contractors registered with various departments of Government of Bihar for executing works contracts. In terms of the contracts, materials like bitumen, "cement, steel rods, etc., are/were











































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top