The High Court, relying on a 2014 decision, held that deducting tax on transport services is illegal. It directed respondent authorities to refund the deducted amount with interest within three months, imposing a 12% penalty for delay if not refunded.
Refund of deducted tax with statutory interest within 3 months; 12% p.a. interest on delay.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP(C) NO.899/2017 Along with WP(C) NO.900/2017 Along with WP(C) NO.901/2017 Along with WP(C) NO.902/2017 Along with WP(C) NO.903/2017 Along with WP(C) NO.904/2017
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. T. VAIPHEI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Present:
For the petitioners : Mr. B.N. Majumder, Advocate, Mr. R. Saha, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. D.C. Nath, Addl. G.A.
25.10.2017.
It is stated by Mr. B.N. Majumder, the learned counsel for the petitioners, which is not disputed by Mr. D.C. Nath, the learned Addl. Government Advocate for the Staterespondents, that the controversy in these writ petitions is squarely covered by the decision of this Court dated 07.01.2014 passed in WP(C) No.127 of 2013 and other connected matters. In those writ petitions, this Court held:“5. ……..A contract to transport goods from one place to another is not a works contract. The amount which a transporter receives may be included in the sale value for calculating the taxable turnover but by no stretch of imagination can the transporter be held liable to pay tax? We are, therefore, clearly of the view that the deduction of tax on the amount paid to the transporters/petitioners is illegal and is liable to be quashed and the same is accordingly quashed. The tax which has been deducted shall be refunded to the petitioners along with statutory interest within 3(three) months from today failing which the State shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum. In case there are any taxes due from any of the petitioners the State shall be at liberty to adjust the refundable amount against the taxes due from the petitioners to the State.”
WP(C) NO.899/2017 a/w WP(C) NO.900/2017 a/w WP(C) NO.901/2017 a/w WP(C) NO.902/2017 a/w WP(C) NO.903/2017 a/w WP(C) NO.904/2017
Page 1 of 2
In that view of the matter, the deduction of taxes at source made by the respondent-authorities from the bills of the petitioners is illegal.
Consequently, the respondent-authorities are directed to refund to the petitioners the deducted amount along with statutory interest within 3(three) months from today, failing which the State-respondents shall pay interest @ 12% per annum. In case, there are any taxes due from any of the petitioners, the State-respondents are at liberty to adjust the refundable amount against the taxes due from the petitioners to the State.
The writ petitions stand disposed of in the manner and to the extent indicated above.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Pulak
WP(C) NO.899/2017 a/w WP(C) NO.900/2017 a/w WP(C) NO.901/2017 a/w WP(C) NO.902/2017 a/w WP(C) NO.903/2017 a/w WP(C) NO.904/2017
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the deduction of tax at source made by respondent-authorities from petitioners' bills is illegal.
How to direct the refund of deducted amount along with statutory interest.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
WP(C) No.127 of 2013Followed¶7
Petitioners (WP(C) Nos. 899-904/2017)
State-respondents
T. Vaiphei
S. Talapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
