JUDGMENT C. N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. – Petitioner in both the original petitions is a contractor engaged in the supply as well as installation of generators for B.S.N.L. Petitioners are registered dealers before the Sales Tax Officer, Works Contract, the 2nd respondent. Petitioners raise various contentions, which are briefly stated hereunder. Firstly, petitioner should not be subjected to tax at 10 per cent as against 4 per cent leviable to the petitioner by virtue of S.R.O. No. 1728/93 read with S.R.O. No. 1091/99. Secondly, according to the petitioner, awarder is to remit tax and when there is failure on the part of the awarder to remit tax, it is for the department to recover tax from the awarder under section 7(10) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Thirdly, the department cannot issue garnishee order in form No. 16 to the awarder for payment of tax assessed on the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the Government Pleader and the Standing Counsel for the B.S.N.L. The provisions of the KGST Act with regard to the payment of tax, deduction of tax by the awarders, etc., provide for settling the disputes between the parties by statutory authorities. Therefore, primarily the matter has to be taken before the statutory authority for taking decision. The petitioner being a registered dealer under the Act before the Sales Tax Officer, Works Contract, Thiruvananthapuram, can always approach the said officer with a request for issuing certificate under rule 22A(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, to enable the petitioner to receive payment without deduction of tax or at lower rate, if the petitioner is eligible for either of these benefits. The certificate will be issued by the officer if the officer is satisfied that the petitioner is regular in payment of monthly tax. Similarly, petitioner's claim for concessional rate at 4 per cent on supplies to B.S.N.L. by notification S.R.O. No. 1728/93 is a matter to be decided by the Sales Tax Officer, Works contract and if he declines, the petitioner is free to challenge such order in appeal. Besides, the petitioner can also invoke the powers of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under section 59A for a clarification as to whether the benefit of the notification given for supplies to the telecom department will be available to the B.S.N.L. on obtaining the declaration from them. Besides, the petitioner can also invoke the powers of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under section 59A for a clarification as to whether the benefit of the notification given for supplies to the telecom department will be available to the B.S.N.L. on obtaining the declaration from them. In the circumstances, I direct the petitioner to approach the Sales Tax Officer, Works contract, with an application who will consider the petitioner's contentions and to issue certificate as stated above for payment without deduction of tax, if he is satisfied that the petitioner is regularly remitting tax or otherwise eligible for the certificate. The petitioner can also claim benefit of concessional rate in assessments and if it is not allowed, they can file appeal. The petitioner can also seek for clarification under section 59A as stated above. Counsel for the B.S.N.L. pointed out that they have remitted the tax so far deducted from the petitioner's bills to the Accountant-General. This of course is not contemplated under the Act, which provides for payment to the officer, before whom the contractor is registered. Therefore, hereafter the B.S.N.L. shall remit tax to the officer, before whom the petitioner is registered and issue certificate of payment of tax in form 21C to the petitioner. Deduction so far made will be remitted by the B.S.N.L. to the account of the petitioner with the officer before whom the petitioner is registered. The B.S.N.L. will remit the tax to the Sales Tax Officer (Works Contract) until the petitioner produces certificate from the assessing officer authorising payment without deduction of tax. The contention of the petitioner is that tax is to be recovered from awarder and not from them cannot be accepted because it is only an option left to the department in the event of default by the assessee. The contractor like any other dealer has to file returns and claim credit of tax deducted and paid by the awarder on the basis of the certificates issued. Moreover, section 7(10) provides for assessment and recovery of tax and levy of penalty from the awarder arises only when the awarder fails to deduct tax from the contractor's bills. Since in this case B.S.N.L. is deducting sales tax from the petitioner's bills, section 7(10) will not be applicable and the assessments have to be completed in the name of the petitioner. Since in this case B.S.N.L. is deducting sales tax from the petitioner's bills, section 7(10) will not be applicable and the assessments have to be completed in the name of the petitioner. However, the petitioner is entitled to credit of tax paid by B.S.N.L. in petitioner's account or in their behalf. Moreover, section 7(10) of the Act providing for recovery of tax from the awarder does not absolve the petitioners of their liabilities under the Act. B.S.N.L. will continue to deduct tax from the petitioner's bills unless the petitioner gets certificate from the assessing officer as stated above authorising payment without deduction of tax. In the circumstances the original petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the Sales Tax Officer (Works Contract) for appropriate certificates under rule 22A(3). There will be a further direction to the said officer to complete the petitioner's assessments without any delay to enable the petitioners to settle their accounts with B.S.N.L. If there is grievance in the assessments made, petitioner is free to file appeal. The Sales Tax Officer (Works Contract) will, within three weeks from the date of production of accounts and certificates from the B.S.N.L. by the petitioners, determine the appropriate tax liability and modify form 16 issued, so that B.S.N.L. can release payment of the petitioners after deducting and remitting actual tax due in respect of the work. All issues will be considered in assessments and in appeal before statutory authority. Order on C.M.P. No. 62564 of 2002 in O.P. No. 38164 of 2001 dismissed. Petition disposed of.