9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to delve into the merits of the matter. In the absence of any details, it cannot be presumed that those goods were actually moved from various places as specified in the details, to the petitioner, at Tamil Nadu. The writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the revisional authority under the Act to substantiate his case for the entitlement of Certificate of No Liability - decided partly in favor of petitioner. - W. P. (MD) Nos. 14843 of 2011, 14845 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 20-4-2017 - M. Govindaraj, J. For Petitioner : Mr.Joseph Prabhakar For Respondent : Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Mr.A.Haja Mohideen , Mr.S.Manohar ORDER The petitioner in W.P.(MD) Nos.14843 and 14844 of 2011, challenges the order dated 09.12.2011, passed in TIN 33105163335/2011-12, by the first respondent Assistant Commissioner (CT) FAC, Madurai Rural (South) Assessment Circle, Madurai and seeks for a direction to the first respondent to issue Form S to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.14845 of 2011 seeks for a writ of prohibition, restraining the respondent Nos.2 and 3 from deducting any tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order. The petitioner has challenged the same on the grounds that the order placed on the Head Office for effecting any interstate works contract cannot be treated as an order placed on the Branch Office of the petitioner to suffer any liability under the provisions of the State Act or under the provisions of the Central Act. Therefore, the first respondent ought not to have brought the interstate works contract under the ambit of the Local Act. Since the first respondent does not have jurisdiction to deduct Tax at Source, shall not refuse to issue No Liability Certificate. 8. Since the petitioner is a dealer under Section 2(15) (iv) of the State Act, which includes the Branch Office of a non resident principal, the first respondent is bound to grant a certificate in Form S on deductibility. Therefore, on various other grounds, the petitioner sought to quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent rejecting the request to grant Form S and also sought for a direction to issue Form S to the petitioner. 9. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the request of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as also not shown any purchase within the State as seen from the monthly returns filed by him. If at all the petitioner has purchased any materials within the State of Tamil Nadu, they could have paid tax under Section 5 of the TNVAT Act 2006. After paying tax only, the petitioner will be eligible for getting No Liability Certificate. Without there being any transactions and without there being any proof of movement of materials from the Head Office to the State of Tamil Nadu, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for No Liability Certificate and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 13. The crux of the matter revolves around Section 13(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, which reads as follows: 13.Deduction of tax at source in works contract .--. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, every person responsible for paying any sum to any dealer for execution of works contract shall, at the time of payment of such sum, deduct an amount calculated, at the following rate, namely:- ate, namely:- (i) civil works contract - two per cent of the total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receipt of the same. 17. In the absence of any details, it cannot be presumed that those goods were actually moved from various places as specified in the details, to the petitioner, at Tamil Nadu. A statement is made by the first respondent in their counter that the petitioner has not purchased any materials at Tamil Nadu and there is no proof that the petitioner - dealer is involved in the works contract by purchasing materials within the State of Tamil Nadu or moving materials during the course of interstate sales. The petitioner has filed monthly returns clearly reveals that they have not made any purchase within the State of Tamil Nadu as stated by the first respondent. 18. Therefore, it is clearly seen that as per the statement of the petitioner, they have neither purchased any goods within the State of Tamil Nadu nor produced any proof of interstate movement to the State of Tamil Nadu and not even a scrap of transit pass produced before the authority. The petitioner would further claim that the alternative remedy under the State Act is not efficacious. 19. In the instant case, the dealer has neither shown that he is a party to the works contract as shown in the agre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
