Mandamus for VAT certificate rejected where tax deduction and statutory duty were disputed, with remedy before assessing authority available.

A writ of mandamus to compel issuance of Form JVAT 400 was unavailable where the petitioner failed to establish a clear statutory duty under Section 44 of the Jharkhand VAT Act read with Rule 23, and the alleged tax deduction at source itself remained disputed. The High Court treated the matter as turning on unresolved factual questions, including whether any deduction had been made and by whom, which could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The petition was also premature because assessment was pending and an adequate remedy lay before the assessing authority. No mandamus was therefore warranted, and the writ relief was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued directing the contractee to furnish Form JVAT 400 when the existence of tax deduction at source and the corresponding legal duty were disputed and the petitioner had a statutory remedy before the assessing authority.

Analysis: The claim for issuance of Form JVAT 400 was examined in the light of Section 44 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 read with Rule 23 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Rules, 2006 and the relevant contractual and factual matrix. The petitioner failed to place foundational material showing deduction of VAT at source by the respondent so as to establish a clear statutory obligation to issue the certificate. The controversy turned on disputed questions of fact, including whether any deduction had actually been made and by whom, which could not be resolved in writ jurisdiction. The proceeding was also found to be premature in view of the pending assessment and the availability of redress before the assessing authority.

Conclusion: No mandamus was warranted and the writ petition was not maintainable for the relief sought.

---