9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1369 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxTime limitation - present Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner on 04.07.2022 immediately after the impugned order dated 01.06.2022 was served within the statutory period prescribed for filing the appeal before the expiry of limitation for filing statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority had expired - Wrongful determination of taxable turnover under Rule 8(5)(d) of the TNVAT Rules, 2007, r/w Section 5 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. HELD THAT - Section 5(1) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 is the charging provisions for works contract. The taxable turnover is to be determined under Rule 8(5) of the TN VAT Rules,2007. Only the amounts specified in Clauses (a) to (i) to Rule 8(5) of the TNVAT Rules, 2007 are to be allowed to be deducted for determining the taxable turnover in the case of works contract - If amount is not ascertainable from the books of accounts maintained and produced by a dealer before the assessing authority, deduction shall be of such amount as is calculated at the rate specified in column (3) of the Table to Rule 8(5) of the TNVAT Rules, 2007. Since, it is the case of the petitioner that few more TDS certificate have been issued to the Petitioner by the Greater Corporation of Chennai, the petitioner is directed to furnish the same to the respondent within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. The 1st respondent is directed to issue a corrigendum to the impugned order by revising the tax liability after adjusting the TDS certificates said to have been issued during the pendency of this Writ Petition, within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall thereafter file an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the TNVAT Act, 2006, within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of taxable turnover. 2. Calculation and adjustment of TDS. 3. Compliance with Rule 8(5) of the TNVAT Rules, 2007. 4. Maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Summary: 1. Determination of Taxable Turnover: The petitioner, a civil contractor, challenged the impugned order dated 01.06.2022 for the assessment year 2016-2017, which determined the taxable turnover as Rs. 21,67,26,240/-. The petitioner argued that the respondent wrongly determined the taxable turnover under Rule 8(5)(d) of the TNVAT Rules, 2007, r/w Section 5 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, by deducting 30% towards labor charges from the total contract income reported in the Profit & Loss Account. 2. Calculation and Adjustment of TDS: The petitioner sought a refund of TDS amounting to Rs. 56,18,991/- deducted by the Greater Chennai Corporation. The impugned order adjusted only Rs. 33,78,375/- of the TDS towards the tax liability, leaving a balance of Rs. 80,04,427/-. The petitioner claimed that additional TDS certificates were issued during the pendency of the writ petition, leaving a balance of approximately Rs. 6,00,000/- to be issued. 3. Compliance with Rule 8(5) of the TNVAT Rules, 2007: The court emphasized that the taxable turnover must be determined strictly in accordance with Rule 8(5) of the TNVAT Rules, 2007, which allows deductions for specific amounts such as labor charges and subcontractor payments, provided the necessary proof is furnished. The petitioner failed to provide the required particulars and supporting documents, leading to the assessment of the taxable turnover based on the total contract income less 30%. 4. Maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India: The respondent argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had an alternate remedy by way of an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The court agreed, stating that there were no circumstances warranting the invocation of Article 226. The petitioner was directed to furnish the additional TDS certificates within 30 days, and the respondent was instructed to issue a corrigendum to the impugned order within 60 days. The petitioner was then to file an appeal within 90 days, which the Appellate Authority was to dispose of within six months. Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed with observations and liberty for the petitioner to follow the appellate process. The court directed the respondent to revise the tax liability after adjusting the TDS certificates issued during the pendency of the writ petition.
|
