Civil Writ Petition No.19473 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19473 of 2010 Date of decision: 16.12.2010 M/s Centre Development Communication ...Appellant Versus Chief Administrator, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, SAS, Nagar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J ( Oral) . This petition seeks direction of refund of amount deducted on account of tax deduction at source (TDS) out of payment made to the petitioner on account of service rendered in connection with the contract awarded to the petitioner. Case of the petitioner is that it was awarded sanitation work of certain area for daily sweeping of street roads and berms to collect garbage and waste sand etc. including house to house garbage collection and dumping the same into dumping ground. While making payment for the said work, Greater Mohali Area Civil Writ Petition No.19473 of 2010 -2- **** Development Authority, SAS Nagar (Mohali) (GMADA), Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority, Ludhiana(GLADA) and Punjab Urban Development Authority, Patiala (PUDA) made deductions under Section 27 of the Punjab Value Added Tax, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) which was illegal as in absence of any transaction of sale or purchase, no tax was due. Notice was issued to the State of Punjab. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the State of Punjab states that deductions have been made under Section 27 of the Act and though in the light of judgment of this Court pass in Civil Writ Petition No.14797 of 2010 (Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs. The State of Haryana and others) decided on 26.10.2010, deduction of tax at source on contract of service is not permissible, the deduction having already been made in the present case, the petitioner can seek refund by applying to the concerned authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that work executed by the petitioner did not involve any amount of sale and was a transaction entirely of service and thus no amount could be deducted nor petitioner was required to get registration under the Act. He relies on allotment letters Annexures P/1, P/2 and P/3 issued by the GMADA, Mohali, GLADA, Ludhiana and PUDA, Patiala respectively showing that no element of sale is involved. In view of above, we direct the concerned assessing authorities to look into the application which the petitioner may make Civil Writ Petition No.19473 of 2010 -3- **** within one month from today and if it is found that no element of sale was involved, refund the amount of tax deducted at source from the petitioner. The decision may be taken within three months from the date of application. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge December 16,2010 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge