TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses writ petition challenging tax determination for contractor, rules appeal process available</h1> <h3>Tvl. R. Rama Rao, Rep. By its Proprietor: R. Rama Rao Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST)</h3> Tvl. R. Rama Rao, Rep. By its Proprietor: R. Rama Rao Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) - TMI Issues Involved:1. Determination of taxable turnover.2. Calculation and adjustment of TDS.3. Compliance with Rule 8(5) of the TNVAT Rules, 2007.4. Maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Summary:1. Determination of Taxable Turnover:The petitioner, a civil contractor, challenged the impugned order dated 01.06.2022 for the assessment year 2016-2017, which determined the taxable turnover as Rs. 21,67,26,240/-. The petitioner argued that the respondent wrongly determined the taxable turnover under Rule 8(5)(d) of the TNVAT Rules, 2007, r/w Section 5 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, by deducting 30% towards labor charges from the total contract income reported in the Profit & Loss Account.2. Calculation and Adjustment of TDS:The petitioner sought a refund of TDS amounting to Rs. 56,18,991/- deducted by the Greater Chennai Corporation. The impugned order adjusted only Rs. 33,78,375/- of the TDS towards the tax liability, leaving a balance of Rs. 80,04,427/-. The petitioner claimed that additional TDS certificates were issued during the pendency of the writ petition, leaving a balance of approximately Rs. 6,00,000/- to be issued.3. Compliance with Rule 8(5) of the TNVAT Rules, 2007:The court emphasized that the taxable turnover must be determined strictly in accordance with Rule 8(5) of the TNVAT Rules, 2007, which allows deductions for specific amounts such as labor charges and subcontractor payments, provided the necessary proof is furnished. The petitioner failed to provide the required particulars and supporting documents, leading to the assessment of the taxable turnover based on the total contract income less 30%.4. Maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:The respondent argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had an alternate remedy by way of an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The court agreed, stating that there were no circumstances warranting the invocation of Article 226. The petitioner was directed to furnish the additional TDS certificates within 30 days, and the respondent was instructed to issue a corrigendum to the impugned order within 60 days. The petitioner was then to file an appeal within 90 days, which the Appellate Authority was to dispose of within six months.Conclusion:The writ petition was dismissed with observations and liberty for the petitioner to follow the appellate process. The court directed the respondent to revise the tax liability after adjusting the TDS certificates issued during the pendency of the writ petition.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
