COCP No. 1909 of 2010 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … COCP No. 1909 of 2010 Date of decision: November 22,2010 M/s A.K.Electricals ..Petitioner Versus 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 No.1. Mr. S.S.Sahu, AAG,Punjab for respondent No.2. .. Hemant Gupta,J(Oral) C.M.No.29640-CII of 2010 C.M. is allowed as prayed for. C.M.No.29641-CII of 2010 C.M. is allowed. Written statement is taken on the record. COCP1909 of 2010 Mr. Sahu has filed an additional affidavit on behalf of Principal Secretary to Government Punjab, Excise and Taxation Department, Chandigarh, 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 COCP No. 1909 of 2010 2 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 the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1,it is stated that Rs. 3,54,683/- was deducted from the payments made to the petitioner between the period April, 1998 to March, 2002 and the said amount has been paid to the petitioner vide communication dated 28.5.2009. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Punjab, it is pointed out that Rs. 4,43,618 has been released to the petitioner and refund voucher has been sent to the petitioner on 16.11.2010. The said payments are not said to be complete payments. There is no adjudication by any authority in respect of the extent of refund due to the petitioner. In view of the said fact, if the petitioner has any dispute regarding calculation of the refund due, it is open to the petitioner to move to the competent authority for determining the amount due to the petitioner. But it cannot be said that any direction of this court has not been complied with. Petition stands disposed of as such. November 22, 2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) nk JUDGE