TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 46
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion upon the respondent company to issue Certificate of Tax Recovery at Source in Form-JVAT 400 in favour of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,25,72,146/- for the following years:- Year Amount (Rs.) 2012-13 42,02,701.00 2013-14 74,09,673.00 2014-15 9,59,772.00 3. The facts of the case as enunciated in the instant writ application is that the petitioner Firm is a dealer, registered with the Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Jharkhand bearing Tax Identification No. (TIN) 20701402541 under the provisions of JVAT Act, 2005 and is involved in execution of work contracts in the nature of civil works. The Respondent Company-HSCL is a Government of India Enterprise and is also involved in the execution of works ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are under statutory obligation to issue certificate of tax recovery at source in Form-JVAT 400 equal to the amount of VAT deducted from the RA Bills of the petitioners. He further referred the counter affidavit filed by the Revenue and submits that the Respondent Commercial Taxes Department in its counter-affidavit has stated that "........ It is Respondent no. 1 to 3, who are require to supply the JVAT Form-400 upon deposit of tax amount deducted at source from the running bills of the Petitioner. It is categorically asserted by the Petitioner that the tax amount was deducted at source by the respondent no. 1 to 3, however, the requisite JVAT Form-400 was not provided to them for the best reason known to respondents 1 to 3. Unless and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the Form-JVAT 400 towards the certificate of tax recovery at source, the adjustments in the demand notice by the Commercial Taxes Department could not be made. Petitioner made several representations before the respondent authorities expressing its difficulties regarding payment of VAT as demanded by the Commercial Taxes Department and requested them to issue certificate of tax recovery at source in Form-JVAT 400 so that the demand raised by the Commercial Taxes Department can be satisfied but all in vain. (Annexure-1 series to the writ petition). Challenging the assessment, the petitioner moved into revision before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Jharkhand vide Case Nos. CC(S) 837/16, CC(S) 299/17, CC(S) 524/18 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contract. Shee further submits that the entire portions of the contract were sub-contracted by HSCL on back-to-back basis to M/s. H.N. Singh, the petitioner. In terms of the sub-contract, the sub-contractor used to perform their part of the sub contracted work directly and raised bill on HSCL. HSCL in its turn for the same job, raised bill on Bokaro Steel Plant. The supplies and activities covered by both the bills were the same and there was only one accretion resulting in on deemed Sale. In respect of the said deemed sale, Bokaro Steel Plant, while paying HSCL's bills, deducted TDS on account of VAT payable under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (the "Act") at the applicable rate. The TDS so deducted was deposited with the Stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bokaro Steel Plant while paying HSCL's bills deducted TDS on account of VAT payable at the applicable rate and TDS deducted was deposited with the State Government authorities by Bokaro Steel Plant. The Relevant clause 8 of the Special Conditions of Contract wherein it is mentioned that the applicable VAT etc. payable by HSCL shall be reimbursed by the agency's bill. This was merely a mode and manner of fixing price between HSCL and the sub-contractor-petitioner. The TDS was deducted by Bokaro Steel Plant and paid by Bokaro Steel Plant. 8. It further transpires from record that one other sub-contractor-M/s R & P Construction preferred a writ application being W.P.(T) No. 44 of 2006 for the same said relief as in the instant writ applica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....payments made to the petitioner for which it is under a statutory duty to issue Form-JVAT 400 or not is a question of fact which cannot be ascertained in the present proceeding. The petitioner kept quiet for long 7 years and did not raise a grievance of non-issuance of Form-JVAT 400. If at all, it is found that tax deduction at source has been done from the running bills of the petitioner still, the petitioner has failed to establish that the respondent-M/s Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited is under a legal duty to issue the said certificate. In fact, pursuant to order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Department, pending assessment of the petitioner-firm by the Assessing Authority, the present writ petition appears to be pre....