Elecon Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vs Commercial Tax Officer (TDS), East Division

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.—The prayer in the writ petition is for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to consider and

pass order on the refund claim dated March 10, 2006 made by the petitioner u/s 7F of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Rule

18F of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 in respect of the sales tax deducted at source by M/s. Chennai Port Trust, Chennai, in

accordance with law within a stipulated time.

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner entered into a contract with the Chennai Port Trust for manufacture of machinery as per the

design given by the Port Trust. For that purpose, the petitioner effected purchase of accessories and consumable from outside the State of Tamil

Nadu. The machinery so manufactured and the accessories were directly moved to the work site. According to the petitioner, the transactions are

inter-State one and CST has been paid at the appropriate rate of tax to the State from which the goods were moved. However, in view of

statutory provision, Section 7F of the TNGST Act, the Port Trust deducted tax at source on the value of the contract and paid over the same to

the respondent. The petitioner is not liable to pay any tax either u/s 3B or u/s 7C in respect of works contract. Hence invoking Section 7F(6) of

the TNGST Act, the petitioner made an application to the respondent to refund the tax deducted by the Port Trust and paid over to the

respondent. But so far, that has not been considered. Hence the present writ petition with the prayer as stated above.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Government Pleader and perused the material on record.

The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is not prepared in an appreciable manner. The grievance of the petitioner intended to convey has

not been properly conveyed. Even the date of application has not been correctly stated. In ground No. b it is stated as April 18, 2006, whereas

the application annexed at page 17 is dated March 10, 2006. Paragraph 3, which is the sum and substance of the complaint of the petitioner is

totally different than the one argued by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. When this was pointed out to the learned Counsel for the

petitioner, he tendered apology to the manner in which the writ petition has been made and prayed this court to mould the prayer.

Section 7F(6) of the TNGST Act, provides as follows:

Where the dealer proves to the satisfaction of the assessing authority that he is not liable to pay tax u/s 3B (tax for works contract) or Section 7(C)

(compounding tax for works contract), the assessing authority shall refund the amount deposited under Sub-section (2), after adjusting the arrears

of tax, if any, due from the dealer, in such manner as may be prescribed.

Corresponding Rule 18F also provide a mode of refund of the amount paid in excess.

Learned Special Government Pleader has also agreed that the respondent may be directed to consider the request of the petitioner in

accordance with Section 7F and Rules 18F, 18(6) of the TNGST Rules, if the assessing officer is satisfied that the petitioner is not liable to pay tax

either u/s 3B or Section 7C of the Act.

In order to render justice, having heard the learned Counsel on either side and perusing the material on record, and also having regard to the

nature of the prayer sought for with reference to the statutory provision u/s 7F(6), by putting the learned Special Government Pleader on notice,

the following order is passed:

The respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner dated April 18, 2006/March 10, 2006, which is stated to be filed for refund

of tax u/s 7F(6) in accordance with the statutory provision and dispose of the same within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order. It is made clear that this direction given by this court cannot be regarded, as the court has recorded a finding in favour of the

petitioner for the relief sought for in the application. It is only a mere direction for disposal of the application in accordance with the statutory

provision.

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.