This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for restraining M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the HPCL' for the sake of brevity) and its wholly owned Subsidiary Company M/s HPCL Biofuels Limited (respondents no. 1 and 2) from deducting any amount from the bills of the petitioner, which is a contractor, on supply of goods from outside the State of Bihar in course of Inter State Trade in the name of payment of Entry Tax and also for declaration that respondents no. 1 and 2, who are the owners/principals, have got no jurisdiction to deduct any amount of Entry Tax from the bills of the petitioner as the liability of payment of Entry Tax is of the said respondents alone being the Importer of goods into the State of Bihar from outside and for other ancillary reliefs.

2. The petitioner claims that it is a Company situated at Haryana engaged in Design, Engineering, Supply, Erection, Commissioning & Performance Testing of Boilers, Sugar Plants & Co-Gen Plants and it also undertakes Engineering Procurements & Construction Contracts.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that three Tender Enquiries with respect to a Sugar Plant at Lauriya West Champaran, Bihar; an integrated 20 M.W. Cogeneration Power Plant at Lauriya, West Champaran, Bihar and an integrated Sugar Plant at Sugauli, East Champaran, Bihar were floated by HPCL, which were awarded by HPCL Biofuels Limited vide separate orders dated 22.10.2009 and in the Instruction of Bidders, Part-B (Clause 17), it was mentioned that at the time of placement of Purchase Order, the Engineering Procurement Construction (EPC) Contract will be divided into three parts, namely, Supply Contract, Works Contract and Service Contract. The petitioner submitted its offer for all the three Tender Enquiries and became successful and was, accordingly, awarded all the said three contracts consisting of the said three separate portions of works and the petitioner accepted the terms and conditions. He further submitted that here the matter is only with respect to supply portion of the contracts.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is no dispute with respect to the facts that the contract was completed by both the parties as the goods were supplied by the petitioner from its factory at Haryana to HPCL at Haryana itself, which paid the price to the petitioner at Haryana, from where respondents no. 1 and 2 sent the goods to their locations at Lauriya and Sugauli which are within the State of Bihar. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in the said circumstances the Entry Tax on the goods sent by respondents no. 1 and 2 from Haryana to Bihar was clearly leviable upon respondents no. 1 and 2, but the said respondents no. 1 and 2 are trying to deduct the amount of Entry Tax paid by them from the bills of the petitioner, wrongly relying upon the Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods in the Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale therein Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Entry Tax Act' for the sake of brevity).

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 argued that there is no dispute that Entry Tax is leviable on the goods sent from Haryana to Bihar and the dispute is only related to the question as to who is liable to pay the said Entry Tax; either the petitioner or respondents no. 1 and 2. He also stated that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the action of the respondents as respondents no. 1 and 2 had issued Letter of Intent and Purchase Order in favour of M/s ISGEC John Thompson (hereinafter referred to as 'IJT' for the sake of brevity) and the contract in favour of IJT was a composite contract, according to which ever/thing had to be done by IJT and it cannot be legally bifurcated. On this point, learned counsel for the said respondents relied upon two decisions of the Patna High Court in case of Birendra Kumar Poddar alias Birendra Poddar vs. Ghanshyam Mandai and Others, rep