9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated 14.12.2021 without expressing any opinion on merits by directing the respondents therein to consider the representation dated 07.11.2018 and 02.07.2021 of the petitioner. By these representations, the petitioner had requested the 1st respondent therein, the respondent herein to refund an amount of Rs. 56,18,991/- to the petitioner which is said to have been deposited by the Greater Chennai Corporation as TDS while paying the amounts to the petitioner under Section 13 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. 8. Taking note of the aforesaid order dated 14.12.2021 of this Court in W.P.No.26508 of 2021 and pursuant to the proceedings that came to be initiated earlier vide notice dated 10.07.2019, 10.09.2019 and revised notice dated 30.11.2020, the impugned order has been passed. 9. By the impugned order, the respondent has demanded a sum of Rs. 80,04,427/- from the petitioner after adjusting ITC that was available and the TDS deducted by the Greater Chennai Corporation to arrive at the aforesaid figure as detailed below: Total Due 1,72,11,279/- Less: ITC adjusted 58,28,477/- Balance 1,13,82,802/- Less: Paid NIL Balance 1,13,82,802/- Less: TDS 33,78,375/- Balance 80,04,427/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anavel Rs. 2,51,074/- Rs. 5,021/- Total Rs. 1,66,30,855/- Rs. 3,32,616/- (xi) Notice also called upon the petitioner to furnish copies of details of purchase effected from 10 vendors. 14. The petitioner had replied to the said notices vide reply dated 11.12.2020. 15. A further notice based on the above reply dated 11.12.2020 of the petitioner was issued on 03.12.2020, whereby, the petitioner was informed that an opportunity of personal hearing was fixed and that the petitioner was required to be appear on 14.12.2020 to represent the case with supporting documents as mentioned in the reply dated 24.07.2020. 16. In addition, the petitioner also asked to furnish the proof regarding the filing returns and payment of tax by the Sub-Contractors in respect of item No.10 (Non deduction of TDS) and to furnish the details of unregistered purchases for the liability arrived under Section 12 (name and address of the seller). The respondent has passed the impugned order dated 01.06.2022 bearing reference TIN:33491342690/2016-17. 17. Although, the petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the TNVAT Act, 2006, the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of Article 226 of the Constitution of India are attracted and therefore submits that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 25. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not produced any of the documents required for completing the assessment and therefore, the impugnged order has been passed in accordance with the provisions of the TNVAT Act, 2006 r/w TNVAT Rules, 2007. 26. In this connection, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent submitted that notice dated 10.09.2019 was issued to the petitioner wherein, it was proposed to levy tax on income from sundry creditors subject to petitioner furnishing the purchase invoices. However, the petitioner failed to furnish the details. 27. It is further submitted that the petitioner had filed a reply on 24.07.2020 along with few purchase bills and therefore it was not necessary to make another proposal in the subsequent notice dated 30.11.2020. It is submitted that the notice dated 30.11.2020 merely called upon the petitioner to furnish further details with regard to their reply dated 24.07.2020 and since, the petitioner failed to give any reply, the impugned order has been passed on merits. 28. The learned Go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ract in the course of export of the goods out of the territory of India or in the course of import of the goods into the territory of India or in the course of inter- State trade or commerce; (b)All amounts relating to the sale of any goods involved in the execution of works contract which are specifically exempted from tax under the Act; (c)All amounts paid to the subcontractors as consideration for execution of works contract whether wholly or partly: Provided that no such deduction shall be allowed unless the dealer claiming deduction, produces proof that the sub-contractor is a registered dealer liable to pay tax under this Act and that the turnover of such amount is included in the return filed by such sub-contractor; (d) All amount towards labour charges and other charges not involving any transfer of property in goods, actually incurred in connection with the execution of works contract, or such amounts calculated at the rate specified in column (3) of the Table below*, if they are not ascertainable from the books of accounts maintained and produced by a dealer before the assessing authority. (e) All amounts, including the tax collected from the customer, refunded to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is calculated at the rate specified in column (3) of the Table to Rule 8(5) of the TNVAT Rules, 2007. 40. The decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Tvl.ITD Cementation India Ltd., Vs. State of Tamil Nadu in Tax Case (Revision) Nos.31 to 34 of 2017, which was heavily relied upon by the Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, was rendered in the context of contract with National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) for construction of container terminal in Chennai. There the Tribunal had earlier ordered as under:- "The respondent dealer have not maintained the proper accounts as stipulated under rule 8(5) of the TNVAT Rules 2007. The respondent dealer failed to produce related accounts so as to arrive a taxable turnover under Section 5 of the TNVAT Act 2006. Merely on surmise and approximation the respondent dealer had chosen to adopt 5% Gross Profit to arrive the deemed sales turnover. Thus the Assessing Officer is left with no other options except to follow the convention and procedures as being adopted by other dealers of this type of business namely civil works contractors adopting 10% Gross Profit to arrive deemed sale turnover under Section 5 of the TNVAT Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 49. The petitioner claims that out of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 56,18,991/-, only a sum of Rs. 33,78,375/- was allowed and adjusted to tax liability. This is evident from a reading of the impugned order. 50. It is the case of the petitioner that further TDS certificate has been issued by the Greater Chennai Corporation to the petitioner pending this Writ Petition and only balance TDS for a sum of Rs. 6 lakh (approximately) alone remains to be issued to petitioner by the Greater Chennai Corporation for being adjusted towards petitioner's tax liability. 51. In paragraph No.10 of the Counter, it has been stated that although, the Petitioner has accepted that the petitioner has paid a tax on the deemed value of the material used in the "works contract" under Section 5 and same is acceptable. 52. At the same time, it also states that there was a huge difference in the "works contract" receipt, reported in the returns in the Profit and Loss Account. The stand of the respondent that it has not been properly explained with supporting documents by the petitioner is acceptable. 53. The petitioner was required to determine the taxable turnover out of Rs. 28,31,13,474/- reported in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
