Raju K. Thomas VS State Tax Officer

The petitioner, who is an assessee under the CGST/SGST Acts, is registered with the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent awarded two separate contracts to the petitioner, from which Rs. 8,11,206 and Rs. 2,98,848 were deducted under Section 51 of the Act, as shown in Exts.P2 and P2(a). Despite repeated reminders, the petitioner was not given credit for these deductions by the respondents. Consequently, the petitioner had to pay the taxes for the respective periods using their own resources. The petitioner then requested a refund of the tax deducted at source from the 1st respondent, but no positive actions have been taken. The petitioner is now seeking relief based on these circumstances and claims.

The petitioner is a taxpayer under the CGST/SGST Acts, registered with the first respondent. The second respondent awarded two separate contracts to the petitioner, from which amounts of Rs. 8,11,206/- and Rs. 2,98,848/- were deducted as per Section 51 of the CGST Act, evidenced by documents P2 and P2(a). Despite repeated reminders, the petitioner did not receive credit for these deductions from the respondents. Consequently, the petitioner had to pay the due taxes from their own resources to file the necessary returns for the relevant periods.

Due to the lack of response, the petitioner requested a refund of the deducted tax from the first respondent. However, no actions were taken to address this request. Based on these circumstances, the petitioner seeks the following:

1. A writ of mandamus or similar order directing the first respondent to refund the tax deducted at source under Section 51 of the CGST Act, amounting to Rs. 8,11,206/- and Rs. 2,98,848/- by the second respondent, to the petitioner immediately.

2. Any other incidental reliefs, including the costs of the proceedings.

The petitioner, an assessee under the CGST/SGST Acts, is registered with the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent awarded two separate contracts to the petitioner, and a total of Rs. 11,10,054/- (Rs. 8,11,206/- and Rs. 2,98,848/-) was deducted under Section 51 of the Act as evidenced by documents Exts.P2 and P2(a). Despite repeated reminders, the petitioner did not receive credit for these deductions. Consequently, the petitioner filed tax returns for the relevant periods using his own funds.

The petitioner submitted a request to the 1st respondent for a refund of the tax deducted at source, but no action was taken. As a result, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the 1st respondent to refund the tax deducted by the 2nd respondent, amounting to Rs. 8,11,206/- and Rs. 2,98,848/-, and to provide any other incidental reliefs, including the costs of these proceedings.

Sri. Harisankar V. Menon, counsel for the petitioner, argued that an earlier application for a refund had been made. The learned Government Pleader, Smt. Thushara James, appeared for the respondents in the case.

The petitioner, an assessee under the CGST/SGST Acts, has encountered issues related to tax deductions at source for contracts awarded by the 2nd respondent. Specifically, the 2nd respondent deducted Rs. 8,11,206/- and Rs. 2,98,848/- from the petitioner under Section 51 of the Act, as evidenced by Exts.P2 and P2(a). Despite repeated reminders, the petitioner was not given credit for these deductions. Consequently, the petitioner had to pay the taxes due from their own resources for the respective periods.

In response, the petitioner requested a refund from the 1st respondent for the tax deducted at source but received no positive action. As a result, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to refund the tax amounts of Rs. 8,11,206/- and Rs. 2,98,848/- deducted by the 2nd respondent. Additionally, the petitioner requests any incidental reliefs, including the costs of the proceedings.

The case was heard by Sri. Harisankar V. Menon, counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Thushara James, Government Pleader for the respondents. Sri. Harisankar V. Menon noted that the petitioner had initially made an application for a refund that was not in the prescribed format. Following advice, the petitioner submitted the required application in the correct form on October 30, 2019, for a refund under Section 51(8) read with Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

In the interest of justice, the court ordered that if the petitioner has filed the requisite application for a refund as stated, appropriate actions should be taken by the 1st respondent to address the petitioner’s claims.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit: 

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: