Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2015 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 412 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxLocus Standi of Petitioner to invoke writ jurisdiction - TDS Deduction by revenue u/s 4(3) of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 read with rule 7(1) of the Tripura Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 – Whether without authority from respondent No. 4 the petitioner has got any locus standi - Held that:- The petitioner is neither the contractor nor the person to whom the payment would be made by the dealer on account of the works contract - the dispute is fundamentally confined to performance of the private contract (as distinct from the works contract) as entered into by the petitioner and respondent No. 4 - it is surfaced that the petitioner is not an assessee nor the tax at source is directly deducted by the dealer from the petitioner but by the contractor only by dint of the terms of the turnkey agreements nor that the petitioner by any means comes within the meaning of the dealer or conversely whether any person having been affected by the provisions of the private contract, provisions of which have been agreed to by the petitioner, can approach this court for challenging the constitutionality of the rule. The petitioner as such has no statutory liability to pay tax at source or nor can he be assessed in terms of rule 7(8) of the Tripura Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, which provides all such deductions and deposits into the Government Treasury shall be deemed to be provisional payment of tax and shall be adjusted at the time of assessment under sections 29/30/31 of the Act as the case may be, but by virtue of the turnkey agreements as entered into between respondent No. 4 and the petitioner, the petitioner has been required to pay the amount of such tax to respondent No. 4 and this clause has no relation with the taxing authority nor the petitioner has been directed to deposit tax neither were they subjected to the procedure of determination of tax or assessment - Neither the dealer, the Union of India (not made party in the proceeding) nor respondent No. 4 has canvassed any grievance in this regard - there is no question of public injury that any member of the public may having interest come forward for a judicial redress of the injury on challenging the constitutional or legal validity of any piece of legislation. The petitioner has got no locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India for calling the validity of rule 7(1) of the Tripura Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 or for praying other consequential reliefs - from the work-orders as awarded by respondent No. 4 it is apparent that the petitioner agreed to pay the category of the tax which includes the works contract tax/VAT - a person who has consented expressly or impliedly to a thing cannot be said to be "aggrieved" by it - If the petitioner is aggrieved by any action of respondent No. 4, the remedy is definitely not under article 226 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as there is an arbitration clause in each of the work orders as emanated from the agreements – thus, the petitioner lacks the locus standi, as the petitioner has got no legal grievance, to set in the writ proceeding and this writ petition does not deserve any further consideration – Decided against petitioner.
|