Disposed

N.Parameshwaran v. Superintending Engineer

Madras HC16 Jun 2023WP/15066/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Madras High Court directed The Electrical Engineer, PWD, to dispose of the petitioner's representation regarding an excess tax deduction within six weeks. The court exempted itself from deciding the tax dispute and issued no costs.

What did the court decide?

The Electrical Engineer, Respondent No.2, is directed to dispose the petitioner's representation regarding the excess tax refund within six weeks.

N.Parameshwaran Vs Superintending Engineer — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.15066 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16.06.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

W.P.No.15066 of 2020

N.Parameshwaran

.. Petitioner

1.The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Electrical Circle (Blds.Organ), Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶11

2.The Electrical Engineer, Public Works Department, Electrical Division II, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶12

3.The State Tax Officer, Commercial Tax Office, Jawalikadai Veedhi, Dharapuram Assessment Circle, Dharapuram.

¶13

.. Respondents

¶14

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund Rs.18,16,693.50/- being the excess amount deducted by the respondents under Agreement No.3CL/2017-18 and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Surya Narayanan For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar for R1, R2 Mrs.K.Vasanthamala Government Advocate for R3

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

1/5

¶18

W.P.No.15066 of 2020

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner is a sole proprietary and had entered into a contract with the Public Works Department in the State of Tamil Nadu. They were allocated a contract for design, engineering supply, erection, testing and commissioning and handing over of 400 KWP Ground Mounted Grid Connected Solar Photovoltaic Power Plant at Raj Bhavan, Chennai.

¶21

The agreement was dated 26.04.2017. At that relevant point in time, it was the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act,2006 that was in force and the rate of tax of purchase was 5%. There is some dispute with regard to the date where the project underneath the contract has been completed and being a disputed question of fact, this Court does not render a finding.

¶22

While this is so, The Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, came into force and the rate of tax to be enhanced to 12%. According to petitioner, G.O.No.296 dated 09.10.2017 would come to its aid as it provides that contracts that straddle the pre and post GST regime would be entitled to the benefit of lower rate of tax that were in force when the contract was entered into, in the present case being 5%.

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

2/5

¶25

W.P.No.15066 of 2020

¶26

The PWD Department has, however, deducted tax at 12% and has remitted the same to the Commercial Tax Department and an assessment has also been completed on the petitioner on 07.05.2021, adjusting the entirety of the tax deducted towards the demand.

¶27

The petitioner has made a representation before the Electrical Engineer, PWD on 31.07.2020 seeking refund of the additional tax that has been deducted from it and rests content with a direction to that officer to dispose that representation within a time to be fixed by this Court. Hence, the relief sought is modified and mandamus is issued to R2 to dispose the aforesaid representation within a period of six weeks from today, after hearing the petitioner and bearing note of of G.O.No.296 dated 09.10.2017.

¶28

7 . This writ petition stand disposed as above. No costs.

¶29

16.06.2023

¶30

Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes ssm

¶31

To:

¶32

1.The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Electrical Circle (Blds.Organ), Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

3/5

¶35

W.P.No.15066 of 2020

¶36

2.The Electrical Engineer, Public Works Department, Electrical Division II, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶37

3.The State Tax Officer, Commercial Tax Office, Jawalikadai Veedhi, Dharapuram Assessment Circle, Dharapuram.

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

4/5

¶40

W.P.No.15066 of 2020

DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.

ssm

W.P.No.15066 of 2020

16.06.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

5/5

N.Parameshwaran v. Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Parameshwaran v. Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Dishnet Wireless Limited, Vs Union of India

Bnr Exim-Proprietary Concern, Vs the Central Board of Excise

M/s.Tiruvarur consumer co-operative Vs The Registrar of Co- Operative Societies

M.Karunanidhi Vs The Joint Registrar / Managing Director

S.Ponnusamy Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

M/S.Sree Ganesh Pharma Vs the Assistant Commissioner (St)