High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/19968/2015disposed of

Vineet Kumar Jhamb Contractor v. State Of Punjab & ORS

2015-09-19Mr. Justice Surinder Gupta,Mrs Justice Daya Chaudhary3 pages

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 19.9.2015 Vineet Kumar Jhamb Contractor ....Petitioner.

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN.

PRESENT: Mr. Munish Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the amount deducted as sales tax under Section 10-C of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (in short "the Act") along with interest @ 1.5% per month. 2.

The petitioner is a contractor and had undertaken certain construction work/works contract at the instance of offices of the PWRMDC Lining Division No.4, Abohar during the periods from 1997-98 to 2000-01; Abohar Canal Division, Abohar during the periods from 2000-01 to 2004-05; Abohar Canal Sub Division, Abohar during the periods from 1997-98 to 1999-2000; Canal Lining Sub Division No.3, Abohar during the period 1998-99; Irrigation Project Sub Division No.2 Drainage, Malout during the periods from 1998-99 to 2000-01; Irrigation

-2Invest Sub Division No.2 Drainage, Gidderbaha during the periods from 1999-2000 to 2002-03; Irrigation Project Sub Division No.3 Drainage, Malout during the periods from 1999-2000 to 2000-01; Sirhind Feeder Sub Division, Gidderbaha during the periods from 1998-99 to 2004-05; PWRMDC Lining Division No.3, Malout during the periods from 19992000 to 2000-01; Drainage Construction Division, Ferozepur during the period 2003-04; Golewala Drainage Division, Ferozepur, during the period 2004-05; Eastern Canal Division, Ferozepur during the period from 1997-98 to 2004-05; Canal Lining Arrear Division, Tarn Taran at Amritsar during the period 1998-99; PWRMDC Lining Division No.

1, Ferozepur during the period from 2000-01 to 2001-02; Faridkot Lining Sub Division, Abohar during the period 1997-98 and Water Supply and Sanitation Division, Abohar during the period 1997-98. The said offices while making payments to the petitioner had deducted sales tax under Section 10-C of the Act @ 2% amounting to ` 5,49,811/- vide certificates (Annexure P-1 Colly) and deposited the same with respondent No.3. The vires of Section 10-C of the Act were challenged by various writ petitions and this Court vide order dated 13.8.2008 passed in CWP No. 19579 of 2002 declared Section 10-C of the Act as ultra vires and had struck it down as to be unconstitutional. While allowing the said writ petition, this Court had not granted any interest on the amount of tax deducted against which one of the writ petitioners filed LPA No.

740 of 2009 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 26.8.2009 and interest @ 1.5% per month till the date of payment was granted. In a similar case, this Court vide order dated 25.9.2013 passed in CWP No.

-3the Act. The petitioner moved a demand notice-cum-representation dated 1.3.2015 (Annexure P-2) before respondent No.3 for the refund. Since no response was received, the petitioner sent a reminder dated 3.6.2015 (Annexure P-3) for refund of the sales tax so deducted, but no response has been received till date. Hence, the present writ petition. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the relief claimed in the writ petition, the petitioner has sent a demand notice-cum-representation dated 1.3.2015 (Annexure P-2) followed by a reminder dated 3.6.2015 (Annexure P-3) to respondent No.3, but no action has so far been taken thereon.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No.3 to take a decision on the demand notice-cum-representation dated 1.3.2015 (Annexure P-2) followed by a reminder dated 3.6.2015 (Annexure P-3), in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. It is further directed that in case the petitioner is found entitled to the amount, the same shall be released to him in accordance with law within next one month.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE September 19, 2015 (RAMENDRA JAIN) gbs JUDGE