HISH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinule Bench Hon'bte Shri K.l.. Dattu. CJ. Writ Petnion (Tl No.2193 a»20B7 Petitioner Akarshan Construction Company a registered partnerehip f!rm situate at 21 Doongaji Colony Raipur (C.G.) through partner Avina^i Kumar Sahu S/o Late LL. Sahu aged about 42 years resldent of 21 Doongaji Cotony, Raipur (C.G.) versus 1. Commercial Tax Officer Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Commerola! Tax D.K.S. Mantraiaya Bhavan Raipur (C.G.) Petition under Articles 226/227 ofthe Goostitution of India. Respondents Present : Shri Neeiabh Dubey, oounsei for the prtitioner. ORALORD6R (Passed on I" May, 2007) The petitioner is a contraetor and a dealer r^istered under the Provisions of Ghhatti^arti Cammercial''Tax Act. In this petition fllaj under Articles 226/227 ofthe Constitution'of India, the petitiener seete the follcwing reliefs:- "(7.1) For calling for the records of the oase. (7.2) For directing Responderts to retum monies amounting to Rs. 1,84,544.00 collected from petitioner as taet to the petitioner along wtth interest at the rate of fifteen peroent per annum from date of coltection. (7.3) For directing Respondents to altemath^ly adjurt monies amounting to Rs.1,84,544.00 collected from petitioner as tax against demands raised against petitioner while granting interest at the rate of fifteen percent per annum on such amount from date of collection. _______— I-.-' £ (7.4) For deolaring continued retention of amourt of Rs.1,84,544.00 by Respondaits as illegal and beyond powers. (7.5) For granting any other retief that the Hon'ble High Court may deem fit." (2) The Assessing Authortty, in the petitioner's case, has completed the assessment for the Assessment Year 2000-01 & 2002-03 and has ateo issued demand notice for the payment of arreare of tax. After receipt of demand notice, the petitioner had replled to the respondenta endosing certificates of tax collected at source from payments made to the petitioner by the Govemment departments for execution of their works oontract wlth a rsquest to adjust the amounts required to be pakl to hlm towards his tax liability. At the time of hearing ofthis petttion, the contents ofthe repty filed are reiterated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. (3) tn my opinion, this sutxnission af the oounsel for the petltioner has no merit. If an order of assessment is passej and the demand notice is iseued for any assessment year, the dealer is required to pay the tax. If fbr any reason the respondents are retaining the amounts payable to the petltioner, it shouU make appropriate application for refund of the said amounts. Payment of the tax pursuant to demand notice and the refunds of the tax collected are two dlfferent concepts under the tax laws. In that vlew of the matter, the rellefs sought for in this vwlt petition camot be granted and acconlingly the petition requires to be rejeeted and it is rejected. However, liberty is resaved to the petitioner to make appropriate application before the respondents tor refund of tax oollected at source from payments made to ttie petitioner from Government departments for the assessmert year 2000-01 and 2002-2003. tf the petitioner makes such application, the r^pondente are dirscted te consider the same in accordance with law. Ordered aocordingly. Sd/- ChiefJustice K.