Statutory remedy and disputed facts defeated writ relief for Form S or no-liability certificate claims in works contracts.

Entitlement to Form S or a No Liability Certificate under the Tamil Nadu VAT regime depended on proof that the petitioner was a party to the works contract and that the goods movement and tax position fell within the statutory exclusion. The record did not establish the relevant purchases, interstate movement, or supporting material for the claimed exemption, so the controversy remained fact-intensive and required examination by the revisional authority under Section 54. The HC declined to conduct a roving enquiry under Article 226 where disputed factual questions and an effective statutory remedy were available, and directed the petitioner to pursue the revisional remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to issuance of Form "S" or a No Liability Certificate in respect of the works contract transaction, and whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of disputed factual questions and the availability of an alternative remedy under the Act.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 13(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 permits deduction of tax at source in works contracts, while the proviso excludes cases where transfer of property in goods is involved in the course of inter-State trade or import, or where the dealer produces the prescribed certificate from the assessing authority. The petitioner did not establish, with supporting material, that it was a party to the relevant contract, that goods were actually purchased within Tamil Nadu, or that there was proof of interstate movement of goods into the State. The controversy therefore turned on factual matters relating to purchase, supply, movement of goods, and tax liability, which required examination by the revisional authority under Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. In these circumstances, the writ court declined to undertake a roving enquiry under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and held that the petitioner should pursue the statutory revisional remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not entertained on merits and the petitioner was relegated to the revisional authority for appropriate relief.

---