TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 953
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt Year Contract Amount received by the petitioner *TDS payable under Section 13(1) of TNVAT Act, 2006 3547/2020 2012-13 UAA-01 80,05,71,995 1,60,11,440 3548/2020 2013-14 UAA-05 567,44,00,000 11,34,00,000 Total 647,49,71,995 12,94,11,440 [* 2% Payable under Section 13(1) of TNVAT Act, 2006] 4. The petitioner had applied for Form S on 23.03.2011 proviso to Section 13(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as TNVAT Act, 2006) read with Rule 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as TNVAT Rules, 2007). 5. Later the petitioner applied for Form S on 25.06.2012 and claimed the Deemed Sale Value of Contract as Rs.350,83,62,161/- and claimed exemption from payment of tax for a sum of Rs.23,39,10,054/-. Therefore, the petitioner wanted CMRL to not to deduct a sum of Rs.23,39,10,054/- towards tax. This exemption was in respect of both contracts in (UAA 01) and (UAA 05) for a total sum of Rs.23,39,10,054/-. 6. This was a composite Form S that was obtained by the petitioner soon after the contract was awarded to the petitioner in accordance with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....27.09.2012 was applicable for the entire financial year 2012-13 as per the instructions issued by the Principle Commissioner of Commercial Taxes vide Circular No.8/2011 dated 22.03.2011. It is further submitted that the respondent herein has failed to consider the fact that Form S has been revalidated for the assessment year 2013-14 and hence the awarder of contract/works contractee was discharged of his obligation to deduct the TDS. In any event the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner herein for alleged non deduction of TDS by the awarder of the contract is wholly without jurisdiction. It is submitted that several High Courts has held in the context of TDS deduction under the Income Tax Act, 1961 that in case of default, if any, in making over the amount deducted to the treasury, it is obviously the "person" responsible to deduct the TDS and who is deemed to be assessee in default in respect of that amount and that it was not the responsibility of assessee who has accepted the payment of amount from which the tax has been deducted at source. It is submitted that thus the respondent herein has jurisdictionally erred in issuing the show cause ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g AG audit, the Petitioner was requested to furnish the relevant documents to the Respondent vide show cause notice dt. 13.1.2020. But, the Petitioner instead of furnishing the documentary evidences called for by the Respondent, straightaway approached this Hon'ble Court to quash the notice of this Respondent, which is not maintainable in law." 9. In the written submission filed by the learned Government Advocate for the first and third respondents, it is submitted that the first respondent has jurisdiction to issue Impugned Notices to the petitioner as no certificate was issued to the petitioner in Form S to claim exemption under proviso to Sub Clause (c) to Section 13(1) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 read with Rule 9 of the TNVAT Rules, 2007. 10. It is submitted that FORMS R and FORM T submitted by the petitioner in Contract No.(UAA-05) is for the assessment year 2012-2013, whereas the AG Audit Slip No.12 dated 24.08.2016 notified transactions with regards to Contract No.(UAA-01) for the assessment year 2012-2013. 11. It is further submitted that in respect of Contract No.(UAA-05) for the assessment year 2013-2014, there are discrepancies in the Form S as per the records ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntenance works contract for the former. 20. The person responsible for paying tax amount has to deduct tax at 2% or 5% of the amount payable as the case may be as below under Section 13(1) of the TNVAT Act, 2006:- (i) Civil works contract Two per cent of the total amount payable to such dealer; (ii) Civil maintenance works contract Two per cent of the total amount payable to such dealer; (iii) All other works contract [Five per cent] of the total amount payable to such dealers 21. A person responsible for paying amount need not deduct tax at the rate prescribed in Section 13(1) of TNVAT Act, 2006 if the conditions prescribed in proviso to Section 13(1) is attracted. Proviso to Section 13(1) reads as under:- "Provided that no deduction under sub-section (1) shall be made where- (a)no transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in som other form) is involved in the execution of such works contract; or (b)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 inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of import; or (c) the dealer produc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laiming the deduction. 26. Sub-Section (6)to Section 13 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 further makes it clear that, if the amount was wrongly deducted or deducted in excess and that the dealer was not liable to pay tax under Section 5, Assessing Authority shall refund the amount back after adjusting the arrears of tax if any of the dealer. 27. Thus, a mechanism is prescribed under the Act, whereby the amount that is deducted on the payment made is to be adjusted towards liability and excess amount paid is to be refunded back under Section 13(6) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 read with the Rules thereunder. 28. Failure on the part of the person responsible for deducting tax entails proceedings against such a person under Sub-Section (8) to Section 13 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. Sub-Section (8) to Section 13 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 reads as under:- (8) If any person contravenes the provisions of subsection (1) or sub-section (2), the whole amount of tax payable shall be recovered from such person and all provisions of this Act for the recovery of tax including those relating to levy of penalty and interest shall apply, as if the person is an assessee for the purpose of this Act 29. A....