Writ jurisdiction cannot enforce a disputed contractual claim for Form-JVAT 400 issuance without clear statutory duty.

A claim for issuance of Form-JVAT 400 in respect of VAT deducted at source from running account bills was not enforceable in writ jurisdiction. Although the petitioner relied on Section 44 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and Rule 23 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Rules to assert a statutory duty to issue the certificate, the record did not establish a direct obligation on HSCL on the pleaded facts. The grievance was treated as arising mainly from the parties' contractual arrangement and, at most, from non-performance of contractual terms, so writ relief was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for issuance of Form-JVAT 400 certificate in respect of VAT deducted at source from the running account bills, and whether such grievance could be enforced in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The petitioner claimed that, in view of Section 44 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and Rule 23 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Rules, the respondents were bound to issue Form-JVAT 400 corresponding to the VAT deducted from the bills raised in execution of the works contract. The record showed, however, that the deduction at source was made by Bokaro Steel Plant while paying HSCL's bills, and the petitioner did not place material establishing a direct statutory duty upon HSCL to issue the certificate on the facts pleaded. The Court also noted that the petitioner's grievance essentially arose out of the contractual arrangement between the parties and, at best, involved non-performance of contractual terms.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to the requested writ relief, and the dispute was not fit for enforcement in writ jurisdiction.

---