Judge anitha sumanth The Court then set aside the assessment and demand made on SBIOA and observed that the action of the department in attempting to bring to tax the entire contract value in the hands of SBIOA is complete mis-appreciation of scheme of TDS under Section 13 of the Act and ignoring the certificates furnished by SBIOA.

in WP No. 2415 of 2020 was pronounced in open Court on 18th August 2020 and the Order was uploaded in the High Court website on 13th October 2020.

Madras High Court in a case arising under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, in the context of Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS) on Works Contract held that an assessee would be at liberty to file a ‘rectification application’ even after being relegated to ‘statutory-remedy’.
Madras High Court allowed a Writ Petition filed by State Bank of India Officers Association, Chennai Circle (SBIOA). SBIOA, formed under the Indian Trade Union Act 1926, had earlier filed a Writ Petition challenging an order of assessment and the same was dismissed on account of availability of alternate remedy. On Writ Appeal, the dismissal of Writ Petition was confirmed by the Division Bench.
SBIOA then filed rectification application under Section 84 of Tamil Nadu VAT Act (TNVAT Act) stating that there are mistakes apparent on the face of record. The assessing authority rejected the Rectification application on the ground that SBIOA having been relegated to statutory remedy cannot file a rectification application. High Court held that Petitioner is at liberty to avail of any statutory remedy under the Act, be it appeal, revision or any other resort and held that resort to Section 84 by the petitioner is not misconceived and rejection of Section 84 application by Assessing Officer solely on the ground that only an appeal should have been filed is erroneous.
Court then went into the merits of the matter and noted that SBIOA had engaged a Contractor for constructing a residential project called SBIOA Unity Enclave at a total cost of about Rs. 550 Crores on no-profit basis. The Court then set aside the assessment and demand made on SBIOA and observed that the action of the department in attempting to bring to tax the entire contract value in the hands of SBIOA is complete mis-appreciation of scheme of TDS under Section 13 of the Act and ignoring the certificates furnished by SBIOA.
The Court further held that the Officer has entirely lost sight of the scheme of tax deduction under Section 13 as the three certificates issued would show that the Contractor has the benefit of Form S certificates for the entirety of the contract value. The Court referred to analogous provisions under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the judgment of the Apex Court in Hindustan Coca cola Beverage case to hold that the demand of the department cannot be sustained.
The Court finally held that issues of non-deduction of tax Deducted at Source ( TDS) in the case of a non-dealer/non-assessee would form part of an order under Section 13(4) of the Act and not under Section 27 of the Act and the remedy against an order under Section 13(4) of the Act would lie under Section 54 of the Act.