Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Anishia Chandrakanth, is the proprietrix of M/s. ACS Technologies, Thiruvananthapuram. She had successfully executed a supply of IT equipment pursuant to a tender floated by the third respondent, the Director of Treasuries. Against invoices totalling Rs.7,27,25,760/-, she was paid only Rs.7,02,60,480/-, after the third respondent deducted TDS under CGST and SGST at the rate of 1% each, together with TDS under the Income Tax Act at 2%, aggregating to Rs.24,65,280/-. Her grievance was that this deducted amount had not been remitted by the third respondent to the GST and Income Tax authorities against her name. She had submitted a representation (Exhibit P2) to the third respondent seeking resolution, but no decision was taken on it, prompting her to approach the Kerala High Court under Article 226.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction compelling the deductor to remit or account for TDS deducted under CGST and SGST provisions against her GST liability.
  2. Whether the third respondent's prolonged inaction on the petitioner's pending representation warranted intervention by the High Court under Article 226.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The full contract value payable for the IT equipment supplied was Rs.7,27,25,760/-, but Rs.24,65,280/- was withheld as TDS under CGST, SGST and Income Tax provisions.
  • The TDS amount deducted from her bills was never remitted by the third respondent to the GST and Income Tax authorities in her name, depriving her of credit for tax already deducted at source.
  • She had submitted a written representation (Exhibit P2) to the third respondent raising this grievance, but the authority had failed to take any decision despite the lapse of considerable time.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The record placed before the Court did not disclose any specific defence advanced on behalf of the respondents contesting the petitioner's claim on merits.
  • No submissions resisting the direction sought were recorded; the matter proceeded on the footing that the representation simply remained undecided.

Court Order/Findings

  • Considering the facts and circumstances, particularly the pendency of the petitioner's representation without any decision, the Court found it appropriate to direct its disposal rather than adjudicate the underlying TDS/refund dispute itself.
  • The Court directed the third respondent to take an appropriate decision on the petitioner's representation (Exhibit P2) within a period of one month from the date of the judgment.
  • No findings were recorded on the merits of whether the TDS amount was liable to be remitted, refunded, or otherwise credited to the petitioner; the Court left that determination to the third respondent.

Important Clarification

  • Where a taxpayer's representation regarding non-remittance or non-credit of TDS deducted under GST/Income Tax provisions remains undecided for a prolonged period, the High Court will readily direct a time-bound decision under Article 226, without necessarily entering into the merits itself.
  • This remedy is particularly useful for suppliers to government departments who suffer TDS deduction but find the corresponding credit not reflected against their GSTIN.

Sections Involved

  • CGST/SGST Act, 2017 — governs deduction of tax at source by specified government deductors from payments to registered suppliers, forming the basis of the petitioner's TDS grievance.
  • Article 226, Constitution of India — invoked to secure a time-bound decision on a long-pending administrative representation.

Decision – In Favour of

This is a thin, procedural disposal rather than a decision on merits. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to decide the petitioner's representation within one month — an outcome that is, in substance, favourable to the Assessee to the extent it compels a decision, though the underlying claim for credit or refund of the TDS amount was left open for determination by the authority.

Related Case Laws

No directly on-point case notes are currently published on this site.

Case Details

  • Court: Kerala High Court
  • Case No.: WP(C) No.24462 of 2023
  • CNR: Not available on record
  • Coram: Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh
  • Decision Date: 6 October 2023
  • Disposal Nature: Disposed of with direction to decide petitioner's representation on TDS refund within one month

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.