Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The petitioners have assailed a reasoned Order dated June 21, 2012 passed by the Regional Manager of the Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC).
(2.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, the petitioners were awarded contracts by the CWC for handling and transportation of ISO containers and allied services at the Container Freight Station (CFS) at Kolkata. The CWC and the petitioners had entered into a number of contracts for such purpose. The CWC has sought to recover service tax from the first petitioner in respect of a contract dated July 21, 2006. According to him, CWC is not entitled to realize any service tax from the petitioners as sought to be done. He has referred to the various terms and conditions of the contract dated July 21, 2006 and has submitted that, such an adjustment as sought to be done by CWC is not permissible. Moreover, first contract had expired by efflux of time. The parties to the first contract have no claim against each other. CWC did not raise any claim during the validity period of the first contract. The claim of adjustment of service tax is based on the first contract. The parties have entered into a subsequent contract. The terms and conditions of the subsequent contract do not permit CWC to adjust any claim arising out of the first contract, assuming though not admitting that, the petitioners are obliged to pay any amount under the first contract. In fact, CWC is not entitled to adjust any amount towards entitlement of the petitioners under the second contract on the specious plea that, amount is outstanding and payable by the petitioners to CWC under the first contract. Assuming that CWC has a valid claim under the first contract, it has to deploy the methods known to law for the purpose of recovery. Adjustment towards the second contract is not available to CWC. In support of the contention that, the first contract has expired by efflux of time and the parties to the first contract have no claim against each other, he has referred to the fact that, CWC had released the security deposits and the bank guarantee under the first contract in favour of the petitioners. Faced with the arbitrary action of CWC in trying to recover service tax from the petitioners from out of entitlement under the second contract, a writ petition was filed before this Hon'ble Court being W.P. No. 10468(W) of 2012. Such writ petition was disposed of by an order dated May 17, 2012 by directing the Regional Manager of CWC to take a decision on the representation made by the petitioners. The impugned order claims to be acting in terms of such Order dated May 17, 2012. The petitioners have assailed such impugned order in the present writ petition. He has referred to the interim order dated July 6, 2012 passed in the present writ petition and has submitted that, the Court while passing the interim order dated July 6, 2012 had decided that, the earlier contract entered into between the parties did not authorize the Corporation to recover any amount paid in excess of future contracts that might be entered into between the parties. He has submitted that, such decision has not been appealed against by the parties. Such decision is binding on the parties. The parties cannot be heard to the contend to the contrary. The decision rendered on July 6, 2012 by the Court is res judicata between the parties. The principles of res judicata are attracted even at the interim stage of the proceedings between the same parties, when an issue raised is finally decided. An issue raised in the proceedings can be finally decided even at the interim stage of the proceedings. Such a decision attracts the principles of res judicata. In support such contentions, he has relied upon (Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar & Anr., 2005 1 SCC 787). The impugned order is tantamount to CWC deciding its own cause and acting as a judge in respect thereto. The same is not permissible as it is in violation of the principles of natural justice. In support of such contentions, he has relied upon (Shri Surendra Kumar Ray Chowdhury v. The Collector of Calcutta & Ors.,1985 1 CalLJ 332) and an unreported decision of the Division Bench dated December 24, 2014 passed in MAT 1970 of 2014 with CAN 10686 of 2014 (Reshmi Metaliks Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.).
(3.) Referring to (Reliance Energy Ltd. & Anr. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors., 2007 8 SCC 1) learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has contended that, the steps taken by CWC is without jurisdiction and, therefore, the impugned order should be set aside.;