TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 868
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Respondents : Mr.K.Venkatesh ORDER 1. The captioned writ petitions assail three (3) separate orders passed by respondent No.1. 1.1. In W.P.No.40936 of 2016, the order dated 03.11.2016, is assailed; in W.P.No.40937 of 2016, the order assailed is also dated 03.11.2016; and lastly, in W.P.No.40938 of 2016, the order assailed is dated 26.10.2016. 2. To be noted, two (2) separate orders of eve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 misdirected himself, both in law and on facts, in passing the impugned orders, particularly, for the following reasons : (i) Respondent No.1 has proceeded on the basis that, since, tax at source was deducted by Chennai Metro Rail Limited (in short CMRL ), albeit, at a lesser rate, the differential amount was not only required to be recovered from th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e liable for the alleged failure in short collection of withholding tax would be CMRL and not the petitioner. (iv) Since, the allegation is that the petitioner has been charged tax at a rate lower than the rate at which, it should have been charged, respondent No.1 could have invoked, if at all, the provisions of Section 27(1)(b) of the Act, whereas, recourse has been taken, albeit, erroneously,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner, firstly, declared the entire taxable turnover, and thereafter, paid the entire tax, as contended by it. 5.1. Mr.Venkatesh, says that, if, tax is paid, as contended, then, obviously, no tax liability would lie on the petitioner. It is in this context that the learned counsel contends that this matter, would have to be re-examined by respondent No.1. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for th....