2016 (4) TMI 762 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Seeking direction for respondents to refund the excess TDS - Engaged in construction business and undertakes execution of works, contracts for different persons including Public Sector Undertaking, State and Central Government Departments - Petitioner requested for issue of certificate of no deduction but to no effect, but no response has been received till date - Held that - petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.3 to take a decision on the representation dated 18.1.2016, in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. - Matter disposed of

Summary

Issues:
- Issuance of certificate of no deduction
- Refund of excess TDS
- Validity of statutory provisions of sales tax law
- Failure to respond to petitioner's representation

Issuance of certificate of no deduction:
The petitioner, engaged in construction business, sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue a certificate of no deduction and to refrain from taking action against the petitioner's clients for not effecting TDS. The petitioner had been registered under the Value Added Tax Act and had a letter of intent for civil works. Refund vouchers were filed on time, and despite requests and representations, no certificate was issued. The court disposed of the petition by directing the concerned respondent to decide on the representation within a month.

Refund of excess TDS:
The petitioner had requested a writ of mandamus for a refund of excess TDS. The court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel, disposed of the petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. Respondent No.3 was directed to make a decision on the representation within one month, following due process and providing an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.

Validity of statutory provisions of sales tax law:
The judgment referred to a previous case where the validity of statutory provisions of sales tax law in Punjab and Haryana for deduction of tax at source from payments to contractors was challenged. The court had held certain sections as ultra vires for not excluding components like labor, interstate sales, or imports from the value of works contracts for tax deduction. Instead of striking down the provisions, the court decided they would apply only to taxable turnover after deducting specific components. The petitioner's case seemed to be impacted by this previous judgment.

Failure to respond to petitioner's representation:
The petitioner had submitted a representation to respondent No.3, but no action had been taken. The court directed respondent No.3 to decide on the representation within a month, following proper legal procedures and providing the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard.