M GUNASEKARAN Vs. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER CHENNAI DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.G.Jeremiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.T.Ramkumar, learned counsel, who accepts notice on behalf of the first respondent and Mr.K.Venkatesh, Government Advocate(Taxes), who accepts notice on behalf of second respondent and with the consent on either side, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.

(2.) In these writ petitions, the petitioner seeks for a direction upon the 1st respondent to refund the Value Added Tax collected at source in respect of two contracts awarded to them.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that they have been granted track maintenance work by the 1st respondent which is a labour contract and the question of deducting tax at source would not arise. This issue has arisen even as early as in the year 2002 and the competent officer, viz., the Additional Divisional Railway Manager of the Railways sent a communication dated 27.02.2002 addressed to the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Chennai, seeking the following clarification:-