IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 RP.No. 154 of 2009(D) ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.19562/2008 Dated 01/09/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------------- C.ANWAR, S/O. MEMI, PROPRIETOR, KCM WOOD CRAFTS, PAYSSAL, IRIKKUR KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT, CORPORATION LIMITED, MARKETING DIVISION, KADAVANTHARA P.O., ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -20, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (MARKETING). 2. M/S. HANDICRAFTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. R1 BY ADV. SHRI R.T.PRADEEP, SC. R2 BY ADV. SHRI K. ANAND, SC. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- R.P. NO. 154 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C).NO.19562/08 D -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd March, 2009 ORDER Petitioner had approached this Court seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to furnish to the petitioner within a stipulated period the sales tax deduction and remittance Certificate to the Sales Tax Department from the bill amounts mentioned in Ext.P2. By the Judgment under review, this Court recorded the submission of the second respondent that the second respondent is prepared to issue necessary Certificates showing the amount of tax deducted from the Bills payable to the petitioner and remitted to the Sales Tax Department and accordingly a direction was so issued. This Court took note of the submission of the first respondent that there is no deduction by the first respondent. 2. The admitted facts are as follows: The second respondent awarded a work to the first RP.154/09 IN WPC.19562/08D 2 respondent. The first respondent sub-contracted the said work partly to the petitioner and partly to several others. The second respondent has no privity of contract with the petitioner. The second respondent, it would appear, has effected payment directly to the first respondent, according to it, after deducting the tax payable and remitting it to the Department. This is the reason why it made the submission that it had deducted tax and it was so recorded in the Judgment. It is also true that the first respondent has not effected any deduction from the amounts, as the first respondent is not the awarder. The amounts which were received, it is pointed out, by the first respondent from the second respondent, were after deduction of tax. Learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that the first respondent will issue a letter to the petitioner indicating that the amounts paid by it to the petitioner were already suffered tax at the hands of the second respondent. In the light of this, I allow the Review Petition and there will be a direction to the first respondent to issue a letter to the petitioner clearly stating that RP.154/09 IN WPC.19562/08D 3 the amounts paid by the first respondent to the petitioner under the contract in question had suffered tax at the hands of the second respondent. The first respondent will issue the letter within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge