TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 1004
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e first respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to release all the payments due to the petitioner for executing the works in favour of the first respondent to the tune of Rs. 67 lakhs, along with suitable interest. 2. According to the petitioner, they are carrying on cable laying works to various parties, including the first respondent. By letter of Indent dated 17.11.2005, the first respondent was awarded a letter of Indent for upgradation/rehabilitation of external plant net work of Chennai Telephones. The value of the work was estimated at Rs. 1.92 crores with a plus or minus variation of 25% and the stipulated contract period was one year. The scope of work was in the nature of cable laying and rehabil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espondent, wherein, the second respondent had confirmed that the activity performed by the first respondent to BSNL and other public sector undertakings would tantamount to taxable service and liable to service tax. According to the petitioner, though Service Tax has been paid by the petitioner, the same is yet to be reimbursed by the first respondent. 5. On 29.11.2011, the first respondent had informed the petitioner that the Service Tax Department Commissioner had passed an order to pay a sum of Rs. 83.23 lakhs along with equal penalty for the various projects related to the BSNL external plant net work during the period 2004 to 2008 and that they have appealed to CESTAT, Chennai against the said claim and also informed that they are c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the petitioner, in support of his contention, relied upon a judgment reported in 2011 (2) SCC 439 (Godavari Sugar Mills Limited vs State of Maharashtra and Others), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "8. The observationis in Suganmal related to a claim for refund of tax and have to be understood with reference to the nature of the claim made therein. The decision in Suganmal has been explained and distinguished in several subsequent cases, including in U.P. Pollutaion Control Board vs Kanoria Industrial Ltd and ABL International Ltd vs Export Credit Guarantee Corpn of India Ltd. The legal position becomes clear when the decision in Suganmal is read with the other decisions of this Court on the issue, referred to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... distrinction between cases where a claimant approaches the High Court seeking the relief of obtaining only refund and those where refund is sought as a consequential relief after striking down the order of assessment, etc., While a petition praying for mere issue of a writ of mandamus to the State to refund the money alleged to have been illegally collected is not ordinarily maintainable, if the allegation is that the assessment was without a jurisdiction and the taxes collected was without authority of law and therefore the respondents had no authority to retain the money collected without any authority of law, the High Court has the power to direct refund in a writ petition. (Vide Salonah Tea Co Ltd vs Supdt of Taxes) (v) It is one th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from BIFR for filing the present writ petition, claiming a sum of Rs. 67,00,000/-. 11. In the absence of any averment stated in the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner got the leave from BIFR for filing the writ petition for claiming a sum of Rs. 67,00,000/-, I am of the view that the writ petition cannot be maintained at this stage. That apart, when the contract is between the first respondent and the petitioner, who is a sub contractor of the first respondent, the claim made by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 67,00,000/- cannot be made in the writ petition. 12. Admittedly, the contract was only between the first respondent and the BSNL and the petitioner is not a party to the said contract. Further....