gayatri projects limited - Edelweiss

GAYATRI PROJECTS LIMITEDPurchase TaxBackground Principal Place of Charges / Current Status ClaimsParties litigation AllegationsPurchase tax was levied by Govt. of AP Cane Commissioner, The Govt. demanded The total purchase tax dues Govt. claimedGovt. of AP for the cane represented by Cane Govt. of A P, payment of purchase from the sugar season Rs 153.70 Lakhssupplied by the farmers. Com-missioner and the Hyderabad tax for the year 1997-98 to 2000-01 (incl. towardsThe purchase tax for the company 2000-01 and imposed Rs 153.70 Lakhs) was Purchase taxyear 2000-01 of Rs. 153.70 penalty for the same. Rs. 542.82 Lakhs. The dues for the 2000-Lakhs and a penalty of interest payable on the 01 and penalty ofRs. 21.55 Lakhs. Letter above was Rs 151.74 Lakhs Rs. 21.55 Lakhs.ref: B/388/2005, dt:The company has so far27.9.2005 and earlier paid Rs 522.99 Lakhs Thecorrespondencecompany has requested theGovt. to treat the amountpaid by the company asprincipal amount paid and towaive the interest charged inview of the financial difficultiesfaced by the company duringthat time. The company hasalso requested to waive thepenalty imposed by the Govt.in view of the facts mentionedabove.Cane Development Council Cane Commissioner, Cane Commissioner, The company collects The company has paid the Rs 6.43 Lakhs.(CDC) Payment of Govt. of A P and Govt. of A P Rs 2/- from the farmer amount on 21.12.2005.Rs 6,43,074 for the season Company and contributes another2004-05. Letter ref: B/388/ Rs 2 making a total of2005, dt: 27.9.2005 and Rs 4/- per MT for caneearlier correspondencesupplied to fund createdby Govt. of A P knownas Cane evelopmentCouncilOutstanding Cases Filed By IJM-Gayatri JVM/s.IJM-Gayatri JV is executing the Contract Package-AP-13, NH-5. The work was commenced on May’2001 and the ExtendedCompletion date is 24.03.2006. The dispute relate to the Price Adjustment payable to the Claimant under Clause 70.1 and70.3 of PART-II, COPA of agreement. The total amount under consideration is Rs. 14,774.01 LakhsThe Statement of Claimsubmission and written submissions all is completed. The Claim of the company was rejected by the Arbitration Tribunal withmajority decision of 2:1. The contractor preferred an Application under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act-1996.An application has been preferred challenging the Award before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 17-03-2006. The matteris pending for adjudication.Arbitration -M/S IJM-Gayatri JV1. M/s.IJM-Gayatri JV executed the Contract Package-I,NH-5 (Widening to four lanes and Strengthening of existing twolane road from km 355/00 to 380/000 of Chilakaluripet - Vijayawada Section of NH-5). The work commenced inMarch’1999 and the work completed by the extended date of December’2002. During Execution contractor facedmany hindrances and consequently the Original Contract period was extended. The Contractor is entitled forcompensation due to prolongation of the Contract Period. The nature of Claims are, Claim for Compensaion ofLoss of Profit and infructuous overheads due to prolongation of Contract, Claim for costs of Idle Plant and Equipment,Claim for Loss sustained due to Locking of securties during the extended period of contract, Claim for Payment ofimport duty to be paid to Central excise Department , Claim for price Escalation towards HSD not covered by POL160