IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 RP.No. 797 of 2010(A) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DTD. 15.12.2009 IN WPC. 31649/09. .......... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/PETITIONER. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- M/S.S & S COMPANY,KUMARANASAN SMARAKA BUILDING,TASS ROAD, ALWAYE,A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.V.P.SHAMSUDDIN. BY ADV. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY PROJECT DIVISION, HOSPITAL ROAD,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682011. 2. THE KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD,A GOVT. OF KERALA UNDERTAKING, CARMEL CENTRE,BANERJI ROAD,KOCHI-682 018. 3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER(WORKS CONTRACT),OFFICE OF THE DY.COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES,BAZAR ROAD,MATTANCHERRY. PIN-682 001. 4. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAYE. PIN-683 501. 5. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 ADV. SMT.AMBIKA DEVI, SC, KWA R2 BY SRI.M.V.THAMBAN, FOR KSCC .LTD. R3 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- Review Petition No.797 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010 O R D E R --------------- In the judgment dated 5.12.2009 this court directed the 2nd respondent to surrender the Tax deduction certificate already issued by the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent was directed to issue fresh TDS certificate in favour of each of the consortium partners, in order to facilitate them to claim credit of tax payment. 2. It is evident from Ext.P11 that the 2nd respondent had issued a letter to the 1st respondent stating that the original of the TDS certificates are not traceable, because the files and records of the office of the 2nd respondent pertaining to the work in question is in the custody of the Vigilance Department. In the said letter, the 2nd respondent had requested the 1st respondent to comply with the directions contained in R.P.797/10 -2- the judgment, on the basis of the assurance that, the amount covered under the TDS certificate has not been included in the returns filed by the 2nd respondent and that it will not be included in the return to be filed in future also. It is further assured that whenever the original of the certificates is received, the same will be surrendered to the office of the 1st respondent. But it is evident that the 1st respondent had refused to issue TDS certificate in favour of the petitioner since the original was not surrendered, in strict compliance with the directions contained in the judgment. 3. In view of Ext.P11 letter and the undertaking made therein by the 2nd respondent, I am of the opinion that the 1st respondent can be directed to issue fresh certificates in the name of the petitioner, subject to condition of the petitioner producing copies of the relevant certificates. 4. It is made clear that the 2nd respondent is at an obligation to produce the originals of such certificates as and when the same is received from the custody of the R.P.797/10 -3- Vigilance Department. The undertaking made by the 2nd respondent with respect to non-use of the certificates, is hereby recorded and it is made clear that the 2nd respondent would not be entitled for making use of the certificates for claiming any benefit from the Commercial Tax Department. 5. The directions contained in the judgment with respect to the issuance of certificates in future will stand modified to the above extent. The review petition is disposed of on the above terms. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb