9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall be reimbursed by the agency s bill. This was merely a mode and manner of fixing price between HSCL and the sub-contractor-petitioner. The TDS was deducted by Bokaro Steel Plant and paid by Bokaro Steel Plant. Thus, it is crystal clear that the entire portion of contract was sub-contracted by the Respondent Company to the petitioner on back-to-back basis and the sub-contractor raised bills to HSCL and HSCL in turn raised bills to Bokaro Steel Plant and Bokaro Steel Plant while paying HSCL s bills deducted TDS on account of VAT payable at the applicable rate and TDS deducted was deposited with the State Government authorities by Bokaro Steel Plant. Nothing has been produced by the petitioner which would reveal deduction on account of VAT for the works contract of M/s Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, for which the respondent-M/s Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited is under a duty to issue certificate in Form-JVAT 400. Application dismissed. - W.P. (T) No. 3036 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 28-11-2022 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, Adv. For the Resp.-HSCL : Mrs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the chart hereinabove. The works contract as stated aforesaid for the year 2012-2013, 2013-2014 2014-2015 amounts 23,23,60,075.11/- out of which the VAT deducted by the respondents is Rs. 1,25,72,146/-. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from conjoint reading of Section 44 of the JVAT Act and Rule 23 of the JVAT Rules, it is apparent that the respondents are under statutory obligation to issue certificate of tax recovery at source in Form-JVAT 400 equal to the amount of VAT deducted from the RA Bills of the petitioners. He further referred the counter affidavit filed by the Revenue and submits that the Respondent Commercial Taxes Department in its counter-affidavit has stated that .. It is Respondent no. 1 to 3, who are require to supply the JVAT Form-400 upon deposit of tax amount deducted at source from the running bills of the Petitioner. It is categorically asserted by the Petitioner that the tax amount was deducted at source by the respondent no. 1 to 3, however, the requisite JVAT Form-400 was not provided to them for the best reason known to respondents 1 to 3. Unless and until the respondents' no. 1 to 3 does not deposit the tax collected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the petitioner. Accordingly revised assessment orders revised demand notices were issued. Learned counsel reiterated that the revised demand notices issued by the Commercial Taxes Department does not indicate any adjustment of tax which has been deducted by the respondents from the RA Bills of the petitioner. (Annexure-2 series to the writ petition) and the respondent nos.1 to 3 are under statutory obligation to issue Certificate of tax recovery at source in Form-JVAT 400 to the petitioner in view of the fact that the respondents have deducted the Value Added Tax at source and made the payments to the petitioner against the works executed by it. He further submits that non-issuance of the certificate of tax recovery at source in Form-JVAT 400 to the petitioner, despite the fact that such recovery of tax has already been made from the bills of the petitioner, amounts to violation of the conditions enshrined in Section 44 of the JVAT Act and Rule 23 of JVAT Rules. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-company relying upon the counter-affidavit submits that M/s. HSCL entered into contracts with Bokaro Steel Plant of Steel Authority of India Limited for constructions purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of VAT payable at the applicable rate and TDS deducted was deposited with the State Government authorities by Bokaro Steel Plant. The Relevant clause 8 of the Special Conditions of Contract wherein it is mentioned that the applicable VAT etc. payable by HSCL shall be reimbursed by the agency s bill. This was merely a mode and manner of fixing price between HSCL and the sub-contractor-petitioner. The TDS was deducted by Bokaro Steel Plant and paid by Bokaro Steel Plant. 8. It further transpires from record that one other sub-contractor-M/s R P Construction preferred a writ application being W.P.(T) No. 44 of 2006 for the same said relief as in the instant writ application. The said writ application was disposed of vide order dated 20.04.2016 holding as under:- 4. At the outset, we may notice that the writ petition is bereft of foundation facts for seeking Mandamus to the respondent-M/s Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited to issue Form-JVAT 400 to the petitioner-firm. The petitioner has failed to produce a document which would disclose deduction on account of VAT for the works contract of M/s Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, for which the respondent-M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
