TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 221
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or a direction to the first respondent to issue Form "S" to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.14845 of 2011 seeks for a writ of prohibition, restraining the respondent Nos.2 and 3 from deducting any tax at source under the provisions of the State Act in the hands of the petitioner in respect of the interstate works contract executed by the petitioner's Head Office at Rajasthan. 3. The petitioner is in the business of undertaking "Works Contract" for Indian Railways. It's Head Office is situated at Rajasthan, which is a registered dealer, under Local Taxation Laws of Rajasthan. The petitioner's Head Office entered into two separate agreements with the second and third respondents, namely, Chief Project Manage....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tate in nature viz., the goods purchased from outside the State of Tamil Nadu are moved into Tamil Nadu for execution of the works contract. Therefore, the petitioner is not liable for any Tax Deduction at Source under the State Act. 7. The first respondent without considering the facts of the case, rejected the petitioner's applications for issuing Form "S" vide the impugned order. The petitioner has challenged the same on the grounds that the order placed on the Head Office for effecting any interstate works contract cannot be treated as an order placed on the Branch Office of the petitioner to suffer any liability under the provisions of the State Act or under the provisions of the Central Act. Therefore, the first respondent ough....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as a dealer, it does not mean that the petitioner was actually executing the works and he is entitled for No Liability Certificate. The petitioner neither entered into any agreement nor executed any works to the Railways Department. The petitioner has reported NIL turnover for the months of September and October 2011. The actual agreement is between the Head Office of the petitioner at Rajasthan and the Railways Department. If at all the No Liability Certificate is required, the Head Office has to approach the Assessing Authority of Rajasthan, in accordance with the Act and they cannot approach the State of Tamil Nadu for the purchases made at Rajasthan. 10. The judgment of Sahana Steel's case cited by the petitioner, does not apply ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Liability Certificate and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 13. The crux of the matter revolves around Section 13(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, which reads as follows: "13.Deduction of tax at source in works contract .--. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, every person responsible for paying any sum to any dealer for execution of works contract shall, at the time of payment of such sum, deduct an amount calculated, at the following rate, namely:- ate, namely:- (i) civil works contract - two per cent of the total amount payable to such dealer; (ii) civil maintenance works ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which specifies the transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) is involved in the execution of works contract, in the course of interstate trade or commerce or in the course of import. According to the petitioner, the Head Office at Rajasthan purchased all the goods at Rajasthan and moved the goods to Tamil Nadu for executing the works contract. Admittedly, the agreement is between the Head Office at Rajasthan and the Indian Railways. The petitioner nowhere figures in the agreement. 16. In support of their case, the petitioner has produced the statement of purchase made by the Head Office from various dealers for the purpose of supplying of goods to the work site at Chennai. But the details of purchase does n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds from various places to the warehouses of the second and third respondents; lastly, the petitioner has not shown any connection to the works contract that has executed by the Head Office at Rajasthan through them. The petitioner has filed NIL returns every month. In the absence of accrual of right to raise a cause of action by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to delve into the merits of the matter. 20. Be that as it may, this proof of interstate movement, tax reference and the details of goods supplied were all factual aspects which has to be dealt with by the revisional authority under Section 54 Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act 2006. This Court cannot delve into the factual aspects and conduct a roving enquiry. Therefore, it ....