Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Era Infra Engineering Ltd vs Union Of India And Others on 18 November, 2013
Author: Rajive Bhalla
Bench: Rajive Bhalla
Civil Writ Petition No.25142 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No.25142 of 2013
Date of Decision: 18.11.2013
M/s ERA Infra Engineering Ltd. ..Petitioner
versus
Union of India and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON
Present: Mr. R. Kartikeya, Advocate, for the petitioner.
RAJIVE BHALLA, J.
The petitioner prays for quashing of demand raised on account of cess levied under the Buildings and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "1996 Act").
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner- company is doing construction work for respondent no.2. The petitioner received communication dated 21.11.2011 from the Manager (HR), Aravali Power Company Private Limited, calling upon the petitioner, to comply with provisions of the 1996 Act. The petitioner replied vide letter dated 23.11.2011 that as building and other construction works are covered under provisions of the Factories Act, 1948, cess under the 1996 Act, is not attracted. In response to these letters, the petitioner received a reply dated 8.11.2012, advising the petitioner, to abide by the law failing which Varinder Kumar 2013.12.09 16:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.25142 of 2013 2 appropriate action would be initiated. The petitioner sent another communication, dated 25.10.2012 to the same effect. Respondent no.2 has, however, proceeded to deduct cess from the petitioner's bills. Counsel for the petitioner prays that as cess is not payable by the petitioner, the deduction effected from its bills is illegal and, therefore, respondent no.2 may be directed to refund this amount.
We have heard counsel for the petitioner and find no reason to issue the writ as prayed.
The dispute, in essence, arises from a contract awarded to respondent no.2. The petitioner's liability to pay cess, in our prima facie opinion, is covered by clause 5.0.0. of the contract and its sub clauses. The 1996 Act, levying cess was in existence on the date of execution of the contract. Admittedly, an arbitration clause exists in the contract. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner may, if so advised, resort to remedy as provided by the contract.
Dismissed.
( RAJIVE BHALLA )
JUDGE
18.11.2013 ( DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON)
VK JUDGE
Varinder Kumar
2013.12.09 16:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh