9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctive parties, this court is inclined to uphold the objection raised on behalf of the State-respondents by their learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the dispute is between two private individuals namely, petitioner-construction company and respondents 2 and 3, such dispute being in the realm of private law. In the view that we have taken as above, it would suffice to state a few relevant facts and contentions. The petitioner, a works contractor, is a registered dealer under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The works contract in the case on hand was awarded to second and third respondents by the National Highway Authority of India. The petitioner is the sub-contractor and claims to have executed the works on behalf of the contractors-respondents 2 and 3. Action was initiated by the sales tax authorities against the petitioner for recovery of sales tax dues. It is the petitioner's case that respondent No. 2 herein has made deductions towards sales tax from the running account bills at different rates and thus it is the responsibility of respondents 2 and 3 to pay the same towards sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts and the petitioner requires to be construed. The matter falls squarely within the realm of private law. It is, therefore, not a case where a writ court should exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner has alternative remedy, which it is open to it to avail with respect to the claims and reliefs against respondents 2 and 3. For the reasons aforestated, the writ petition is dismissed at admission stage without going into the merits of the main controversy. It is clarified that all questions pertaining to the main controversy are left open. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. This order shall not, however, preclude the writ petitioner from availing such other efficacious alternative remedy as may be open to the petitioner at law and as it may be advised. W.P. No. 9846 of 2004 On the identity of facts and similarity of contentions raised in W.P. No. 9846 of 2004, the order as above passed in W.P. No. 9784 of 2004 shall also govern the instant writ petition being W.P. No. 9846 of 2004. Accordingly, for the reasons aforestated, W.P. No. 9846 of 2004 is also dismissed. [Against this decision the assessee filed an ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority. The assessing officer, however, held a purported meeting between the representatives of the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and arrived at a conclusion that the bills, showing deduction at source, submitted by the appellant are not correct. An appeal was preferred thereagainst. The appellate authority did not agree with the said finding of the assessing officer and remitted the matter back to it. By reason of an order of assessment dated May 22, 2006, the assessing officer held as under: "The assessment record for the year 2002-03 has also verified and found that the C.T.O., Ashoknagar has recorded in his assessment order for the year 2002-03 stating that the assessee has submitted a signed statement of T.D.S. deduction made by M/s. Madhucon Binapuri J.V., and M/s. Madhucon Projects Ltd., for the year 2002-03 as detailed below: 1. B.C. & Tammileru Rs. 10,384.00 2. Vamshadhara Major Bridge Work Rs. 19,36,938.00 3. Sabari Bridge Rs. 15,68,255.00 Rs. 35,15,577.00 But on verification of the bills passed by M/s. Madhucon Projects Ltd., and M/s. Madhucon Binapuri J.V., in favour of M/s. Sri Harsha Constructions they have made deductions on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal-Tamileru Project in the name of a recoupment/recovery in terms of clauses of the sub-contract agreement as truly reflected in running account bills at item 4, at 4 per cent in the running account bills relating to Sabari and Vamshadhara Projects work and remitting the same to the credit of the State Government of Andhra Pradesh for necessary onward credit to the account of the writ petitioner towards the payment of the sales tax dues relating to the above mentioned assessment years as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of the provisions of section 5H of the APGST Act, 1957 and article 265 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 4 to recover and remit forthwith all the amounts in the aggregate of Rs. 74,19,708 recovered from the writ petitioner at source in any name towards the taxes as reflected in the bills during assessment years 1998-1999 to 2003-2004 with interest in terms of section 16(3) of the APGST Act from the date of recovery with all attendant consequences as provided/envisaged under the provisions of the Act and further directing the first respondent not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner for recovering of any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
