TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 913
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....composition exercised by it, as illegal, arbitrary, high-handed, without authority of law and jurisdiction, and the same amounts to acting in violation of the provisions of the Act as well as principles of natural justice; consequently, to set aside the same and restrain the respondents from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed demands pursuant to the order passed by respondent No. 2 dated 06.07.2009. 2. Heard Mr. S. Srikanth Goud, learned counsel representing Mr. V. Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. T. Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Special Government Pleader for State-Tax, for the respondents. 3. The Writ Petition is one which has been filed by the petitioner in the year 2009 and petitioner enjoys an interim protection since then so far as the impugned order is concerned. 4. The brief facts which led to filing of instant Writ Petition are that the petitioner being a proprietary concern is carrying on the business of undertaking electrical contracts. The nature of contracts is erection of high tension electrical lines, establishment of sub-stations, etc. The petitioner is an assessee un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the proceedings. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that, respondent No. 2 however issued again a second notice on 14.11.2008 proposing to confirm the levy of tax in terms of earlier notice issued on the ground that petitioner had not raised any objection for the proposed levy even though petitioner had opted to pay tax under Section 4(7)(b) of Act of 2005; thereafter, petitioner again submitted a reply / representation to respondent No. 2 on 05.11.2008 reiterating the earlier contention in respect of the provision to Section 4(7)(b) of Act of 2005 that was exercised by the petitioner under the said section and the collection of tax at source in Form-501 by respondent No. 4; petitioner also submitted entire available records in respect of certificate of tax collection along with copies of monthly returns filed in Form-200; and petitioner had also submitted its consolidated yearly statement for the respective assessment years. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in spite of categorical stand taken by the petitioner in both the replies submitted to the two show-cause notices, the respondent No. 2, ignoring the same, passed the impu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner had an agreement with respondent No. 4 during the relevant period, the petitioner did not have any other works contract undertaken and that for the entire work executed with respondent No. 4 and the payment received in turn from respondent No. 4, the respondent No. 4 had deducted tax @ 4% and issued certificate in Form 305 to certify the proof of tax collection at source and since the petitioner did not have any other works contract executed, the petitioner did not have any other payment received during the said period. Therefore, the stand of the respondents in passing an order based upon best judgment assessment was not sustainable and liable to be set aside. 11. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the instant writ petition at the first instance was not maintainable as there was a remedy of appeal available to the petitioner. Hence, filing of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable when there was a statutory remedy available. 12. According to the learned Assistant Government Pleader the entire initiation of the proceedings by respondent No. 2 was based upon an audit that was conduct at the premise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of 2005. For ready reference, Section 4 of the Act of 2005 is reproduced hereunder: "4. Charge to tax : ......... (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act,- a) every dealer executing works contract shall pay tax on the value of goods at the time of incorporation of such goods in the works executed at the rates applicable to the goods under the Act: Provided that where accounts are not maintained to determine the correct value of goods at the time of incorporation such dealer shall pay tax at the rate [specified in Schedule-V] on the total consideration received or receivable subject to such deductions as may be prescribed; b) Every dealer executing works contract may in lieu of the amount of tax payable by him under clause (a) opt to pay by way of composition [at the rate of five percent (5%) of the total amount received or receivable by himself towards execution of the works contract either by himself or though sub-contractor subject to such conditions as may be prescribed: Provided that the sub-contractor, executing works contract on behalf of the contractor, who opts t....