R & P CONSTRUCTION HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 168/A Vs. HINDUSTAN STEELWORKS CONSTRUCTION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitionerfirm is registered with the Commercial Taxes Department as a dealer and it has been issued Tax Identification Number (TIN) 20741400967 under Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The petitionerfirm has been awarded contract for execution of various civil works at Bokaro Steel Plant, B.S. City. The petitioner is a subcontractor under M/s Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited who is the principal contractor. The grievance of the petitioner is that M/s Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited made payment to the petitioner after deducting VAT at source however, it has not issued certificate of tax recovery at source in FormJVAT 400 in favour of the petitionerfirm.

(2.) Mr. Rahul Saboo, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005, the petitioner is a contractor whereas, M/s Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited is the contractee and in terms of Section 44 of JVAT Act, 2005 r/w Rule 23 of the JVAT Rules, 2006, the contractee is liable for deduction of tax at source of advance tax which M/s Hindustan Steel Works Limited has already deducted from the running bills of the petitionerfirm and therefore, the respondentM/s Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited is under a statutory duty to issue FormJVAT 400 in favour of the petitionerfirm.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. P Patwalia, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the respondentM/s Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited refers to Rule 2(iii) of JVAT Rules, 2006 and submits that it is Bokaro Steel Plant which is the contractee for the purpose of 2005 Act and not M/s Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited and in fact, the principal employer namely, Bokaro Steel Plant has been deducting TDS from the bills raised by M/s Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited and the same has been deposited with the Commercial Tax Department which has issued TDS certificate to the company. Seriously, challenging the maintainability of the writ petition, Mr. Patwalia, the learned ASGI submits that except, a selfprepared statement of accounts vide Annexure2, the petitioner has not produced even a chit of paper in support of the claim made by it.