Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the first respondent -Municipal Board, Chhoti Sadri to issue Form VAT -41 prescribed under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Rules, 2006 ('VAT Rules'), mentioning the details of the amount deducted in lieu of the tax during the period from 2006 -07 to 2009 -10 and 2011 -12. That apart, the petitioner is also seeking directions to the first respondent to correct the PAN Card number of the petitioner mentioned in Form 16 -A issued under Rule 31 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ('IT Rules'), certifying the amount deducted at source as per the mandate of provisions of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the year 2008 -09.
(2.) THE relevant facts are that the petitioner was awarded various contracts by the first respondent -Municipal Board, Chhoti Sadri. As per the mandate of provisions of Rule 40(2) of the VAT Rules, the awarder of the contract, the first respondent, was under an obligation to issue a certificate of the deduction of tax at source to the contractor. The case of the petitioner is that the despite representations being made time and again, the first respondent has not cared to issue the certificate of deduction of amount in lieu of the tax in the prescribed Form VAT -41 and for this reason, the petitioner has not been extended the adjustment of the tax deducted at source during the period from 2006 -07 to 2009 -10 and 2011 -12. That apart, the grievance of the petitioner is that in the certificate of deduction of tax at source under Section 203 of the Act of 1961, issued by the first respondent in prescribed Form 16A, the PAN number was wrongly mentioned and therefore, the amount of tax deducted at source has not been credited to the account of Department of Income Tax by the concerned Bank and the same is lying in suspense account. Learned counsel submitted that as per the mandate of Rule 40(2) of the VAT Rules, the first respondent is under an obligation to issue the certificate of deduction of tax in Form VAT -41. Learned counsel submitted that on account of inaction on the part of the first respondent in not correcting the PAN number in Form 16A issued in terms of provisions of Rule 31 of the IT Rules, the amount is not credited to the account of Department of Income Tax and therefore, the adjustment of the tax deposited is not extended to the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the first respondent is not clarifying whether the tax deducted has been deposited in the government account as per the provisions of Rule 40(5) of the Rules or not.
(3.) ON the other hand, it is not disputed by the first respondent that the amount in lieu of the tax payable under the VAT Act was deducted at the time of making payment to the awardee of the contract, the petitioner herein, however, the certificate as per the mandate of Rule 40(2) of the VAT Rules in Form VAT -41 certifying the deduction made for the period in question has not been issued to the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the office record of the Municipal Board of the period from 1.4.09 to 31.3.10 is not available and in this regard, an FIR has also been filed by the Municipal Board at Police Station, Chhoti Sadri, Pratapgarh. Learned counsel submitted that the Form 16A could have been presented by the petitioner for necessary correction immediately, however, no steps were taken by the petitioner in this regard.;