(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the Endorsement at Annexure-F. By that endorsement, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore-respondent 3 herein, has stated that there is no provision under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, to transfer the payments made by one dealer to another dealer and therefore, the request made by the petitioner to transfer the works contract tax deducted by him in respect of M/s. CICON Engineers Private Limited and remitted to LVO 050 to LVO 120 cannot be entertained. The petitioner was also permitted to seek refund of the works contract tax so deducted so as to remit it to the jurisdictional LVO. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate, who appears on advance notice and perused the material on record.
(2.) The endorsement merely states that there is no provision to transfer the works contract tax deducted by the petitioner in respect of M/s. CICON Engineers Private Limited. If the petitioner has under an erroneous impression deducted the works contract tax in respect of M/s. CICON Engineers Private Limited, then he is also permitted to seek refund of the same. Any dispute which may arise on this aspect between M/s. CICON Engineers Private Limited and the respondent-Department, could be dealt with separately. The petitioner cannot assail the endorsement by filing this writ petition as if the petitioner is seeking relief for M/s. CICON Engineers Private Limited. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is at liberty to seek refund of the works contract tax so deducted and remitted to the Department. The Department to take note of this aspect of the matter in case a dispute arises with regard to M/s. CICON Engineers Private Limited. If an application is filed by the petitioner seeking refund of the amounts remitted to the Department the latter to consider the said representation in an expeditious manner. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions stand disposed.