COCP No. 1362 of 2010 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … COCP No. 1362 of 2010 Date of decision: November 22,2010 M/s Pardeep Kumar and others ..Petitioners Versus Mr. S.K.Nigam and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Hemant Gupta ... Present: Mr. Raman Sharma,Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Sandeep Lather, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 5 Mr. S.S.Sahu, AAG, Punjab for respondent nos.3,4 and 6 .. Hemant Gupta,J(Oral) Mr. Sahu has filed an additional affidavit on behalf of Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Gurdaspur, the same is taken on the record. The petitioner/contractor has executed job/labour contracts of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited(for short 'BSNL'). Certain deductions out of the payments made to the petitioner were made at source on account of Sales Tax by the BSNL authorities. Some of the amount deducted was deposited with the State of Punjab as well. The petitioners challenged such deductions of tax at source. The writ petitions filed by the petitioners were allowed by the Single Judge. The Letters Patent Appeal Bench granted interest under Section 12(3) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The grievance of the petitioner is that amount of tax deducted at source by the respondents have not been refunded in terms of the directions modified by the LPA Bench and such action is in violation of the judgment passed by this court. In pursuance of the show cause notice issued, the respondent No.1 COCP No. 1362 of 2010 2 has filed an affidavit along with Annexure R-1/1 pointing out that an order of refund to the contractors in respect of each assessment year from 1998-99 to 2003-04 has been passed. It is also stated that year wise and contractor wise break up shown in the annexure. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.4, the detail of payment to M/s Parshotam Singh Cheema and Dharam Singh were marked. In another affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.6, the payments in respect of Pardeep Kumar, Dharam Singh and Parshotam Singh Cheema were disclosed. An additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.4 on 18.11.2010 and on behalf of respondent No.6 on 20.11.2010 pointing out some other payments after reconciliation of accounts. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in Annexure A-1/1 year wise and contractor wise details were reflected to be shown in Annexure but such details have not been given to the petitioner, therefore, he is not in position to point out the correctness of the refund ordered to be paid to the petitioner. In view of the above, the respondent No.1 is directed to supply copy of Annexure as marked in Annexure R-1/1 to the counsel for the petitioner within two weeks from today. If the petitioner finds that such calculations are not correct, seek adjudication to the extent of amount, the petitioners are entitled to refund. In the absence of adjudication of the extent of amount of refund, it cannot be said that the directions of this court have not been complied with. However, no further orders are called for in the present petition. November 22, 2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) nk JUDGE