Kerala High Court
P.P.John vs Union Of India on 3 July, 2025
2025:KER:52681
WP(C) NOS. 475, 29706, 29774 OF 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 475 OF 2017
PETITIONERS:
1 CREATIVE BUILDERS
27/3554-B, 2ND FLOOR, GOOD NEWS
BUILDING,PERUMANOOR P.O., KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682
015.REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER ANJU.S.
2 MIJULAL P
17/1624 A, MUNDAMVELI,KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682 507.
3 JOHN P.P
S/O.P.A.PETER, PANACKAL HOUSE,POWER HOUSE WARD,
ALAPPUZHA.688 001.
4 MS KURIAN VARGHESE
THACHAMPURATH, MULANTHURUTHY,ERNAKULAM-682 314,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER VARGHESE T.V.
5 MS POWERTCH ENGINEERS
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS, EBENEZER,CC 33/1185 A,
CHALIKAVATTOM,VENNALA.P.O., KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682
028,REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER K.O.JACOB.
6 VIJAY CONSTRUCTIONS
ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,MYKULANGARA,
KINGINIMATTAM.P.O.,KOLENCHERY-682 311,
REPRESENTED BY ITSMANAGING PARTNER M.P.ITOOP.
7 MUHAMMED M.I
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR,MANATH BUILDING,
THRIKKAKARA.P.O.,KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682 021.
8 K.THOMAS COMPANY
16/1302, MARKET ROAD, THOPPUMPADY,KOCHI-682 005,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERBINU ALEX THOMAS.
2025:KER:52681
WP(C) NOS. 475, 29706, 29774 OF 2017
2
BY ADVS.
DR.K.P.PRADEEP
SHRI.T.T.BIJU
SMT.NEENA ARIMBOOR
SHRI.SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN
SMT.T.THASMI
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH
BLOCK,NEW DELHI-110 001.
2 CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF
FINANCE,DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA,NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110 001,REPRESENTED
BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
3 CHIEF COMMISSIONER
CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX,COCHIN
COMMISSIONERATE, CENTRAL REVENUE
BUILDINGS,I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM.682
018.
4 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX,SERVICE TAX
DIVISION, C R BUILDINGS,I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI,
ERNAKULAM.682 018.
5 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX,DIVISION E,
COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM.
6 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX,KALAMASSERY
RANGE/DIVISION, KATHRIKADAV,ERNAKULAM.
7 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX,SERVICE TAX
2025:KER:52681
WP(C) NOS. 475, 29706, 29774 OF 2017
3
DIVISION, MUVATTUPUZHA,KPC TOWERS, T.B.JUNCTION,
MUVATTUPUZHA,ERNAKULAM-686 661.
8 CHIEF ENGINEER NAVAL WORKS
KOCHI MILITARY ENGINEERING SERVICE,KATARI BAGH,
NAVAL BASE.P.O., KOCHI-682 004.
9 GARRISON ENGINEER AIR FORCE
PULAYANARKOTTA, THURUVIKKAL
POST,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.
0 ASSISTANT GARISON ENGINEER I
HQ HOSPITAL P.O., KANNUR-670 017.
11 GARRISON ENGINEER I NAVY
OPP INS DWEEPRAKSHAK, UT OF
LAKSHADWEEP,KAVARATHI-682 555.
12 CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS
NO.618, ANNA SALAI, TEYNAMPET,CHENNAI, TAMIL
NADU.600 018.
13 DIRECTOR CONTRACT
DIRECTORATE OF CONTRACT MANAGEMENT,MILITARY
ENGINEER SERVICES,INTEGRATED HQ, MINISTRY OF
DEFENCE,KASHMIR HOUSE, RAJAJI MARG, NEW DELHI-110
011.
BY ADV SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY, CGC
SRI P G JAYASANKAR SR SC,
SRI P ARUN KUMAR SR SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.07.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).29706/2017,
29774/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:52681
WP(C) NOS. 475, 29706, 29774 OF 2017
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 29706 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
M/S KURIAN & VARGHESE,
THACHAMPURATH, MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM 682 314,
REP. BY ITS PARTNER VARGHESE T.V
BY ADVS.
DR.K.P.PRADEEP
SHRI.T.T.BIJU
SHRI.SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN
SMT.T.THASMI
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH
BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110001.
2 CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH
BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110001, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
3 CHIEF COMMISSIONER,
CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, COCHIN
COMMMISSIONERATE, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, 1S
PRESS ROAD, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM 682018.
4 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX,
2025:KER:52681
WP(C) NOS. 475, 29706, 29774 OF 2017
5
MUVATTUPUZHA DIVISION, KPC TOWERS, TB JUNCTION,
MUVATTUUZHA, ERNAKULAM 686661.
5 CHIEF ENGINEER NAVAL WORKS,
KOCHI MILITARY ENGINEERING SERVICE, KARTHARI
BAGH, NAVAL BASE PO, KOCHI 682004.
6 CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS,
NO.618, ANNA SALAI, TENYANMPET, CHENNAI, TAMIL
NADU 600018
7 DIRECTOR CONTRACT,
DIRECTORATE OF CONTRACT MANAGEMENT, MILITARY
ENGINEER SERVICES, INTEGRATED HQ, MINISTRY OF
DEFENCE, KASHMIR HOUSE, RAJAJI MARG, NEW DELHI
110011.
BY ADVS.
SMT.PREMLATHA K. NAIR, CGC
SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.07.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).475/2017 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:52681
WP(C) NOS. 475, 29706, 29774 OF 2017
6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 29774 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
P.P.JOHN,
S/O. P.A.PETER, PANACKAL HOUSE, POWER HOUSE WARD,
ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.
BY ADVS.
DR.K.P.PRADEEP
SHRI.T.T.BIJU
SRI.K.P.KESAVAN NAIR
SHRI.SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN
SMT.T.THASMI
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH
BLOCK,NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2 CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF
FINANCE,DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110
001,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
3 CHIEF COMMISSIONER
CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAXCOCHIN
COMMISSIONERATE, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS,I S
PRESS ROAD, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM - 682 018.
2025:KER:52681
WP(C) NOS. 475, 29706, 29774 OF 2017
7
4 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAXKALAMASSERY
RANGE/DIVISION, KATHRIKADAV,ERNAKULAM - 682017.
5 CHIEF ENGINEER NAVAL WORKS KOCHI
MILITARY ENGINEERING SERVICE,KATARI BAGH, NAVAL
BASE P.O.,KOCHI - 682 004.
6 CENTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS,
NO.618, ANNA SALAI, TEYNAMPET,CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU
- 600 018.
7 DIRECTOR CONTRACT,
DIRECTORAGE OF CONTRACT MANAGEMENTMILITARY
ENGINEER SERVICES,INTEGRATED HQ, MINISTRY OF
DEFENCEKASHMIR HOUSE, RAJAJI MARG,NEW DELHI - 110
011.
8 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,COCHIN CENTRAL
DIVISION, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM -
682 037.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.S.AMAL DHARSAN
SRI.ARUN KUMAR.P
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.07.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).475/2017 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:52681
WP(C) NOS. 475, 29706, 29774 OF 2017
8
"C.R."
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
-------------------------------------------------------------
W.P(C) NOS. 475, 29706, 29774 OF 2017
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 03rd day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
These writ petitions are filed at the instance of various contractors stated to have been engaged in the execution of works contracts for the Military Engineering Service (MES) as well as the CPWD. It is not in dispute that with respect to the service provided by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.475 of 2017, going by the charging section, they had a liability to satisfy service tax. Admittedly, the petitioners also collected the applicable service tax from the service recipient (MES) as well as CPWD and have also remitted the same. Appropriate returns were also filed by respective petitioners.
2. The petitioners contend that by virtue of Ext.P2 (The Finance Act, 2016) an exemption/non-liability was extended by virtue of the provisions of Section 102 of the Finance Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), as regards works contract executed by contractors like the petitioners for the Government, local authority or a Governmental authority. The afore non-
2025:KER:52681 WP(C) NOS. 475, 29706, 29774 OF 2017 9 liability was for a limited period from 01.04.2015 till 29.02.2016. It is not in dispute that the service provided by the respective petitioners would fall within the ambit of the afore provision and hence entitled to exemption. Sub-section (2) to Section 102 of the Act provided for the refund of service tax already paid. The manner of seeking refund has been specifically laid down under sub-section (3).
3. On the basis of the above, it is not in dispute that all the petitioners in W.P(C) No.475 of 2017 have filed refund applications in the prescribed format.
4. I have heard Dr.K.P.Pradeep, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. P.G.Jayasankar and Sri. P.A.Arunkumar, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respective respondents, as well as Smt. Premlatha K.Nair, the learned Central Government Counsel for the 1st respondent herein.
5. Dr.K.P.Pradeep, the learned counsel for the petitioners, points out that as regards the 1st and 2nd petitioners in WP(C) No.475 of 2017, during the pendency of the writ petition, their entitlement for refund was processed and refund also effected to them. In that view of the matter, as regards 1 st and 2nd petitioners in W.P(C) No.475 of 2017 nothing further remains for consideration.
2025:KER:52681 WP(C) NOS. 475, 29706, 29774 OF 2017 10
6. However, Dr.K.P.Pradeep would point out that as regards the 3rd and 4th petitioners in W.P(C) No.475 of 2017, the application/s for refund was independently considered by the authority under the Finance Act and by separate orders, the claim for refund was rejected. The 3rd petitioner in W.P(C) No.475 of 2017, in such circumstances, filed W.P(C) No. 29774 of 2017 seeking to challenge the order at Ext.P4 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (4th respondent). The 4th petitioner in W.P(C) No. 475 of 2017 has filed W.P(C) No. 29706 of 2017 seeking to challenge Ext.P4 order rejecting the application for refund as above, issued by the 4th respondent.
7. As regards petitioner Nos.5 to 8 in W.P(C) No. 475 of 2017, it is not in dispute that their claim for refund has not yet been finally adjudicated by the authority. However, they anticipate that their claims would also be rejected in view of the rejection of the claims made by two of the petitioners, as noticed above.
8. This Court notices that, as regards the nature of the activities carried out by the respective petitioners, there is no dispute. The petitioners have been extending work contract services to the MES/CPWD. They admit that service tax was collected and also paid. In that view of the matter, with reference 2025:KER:52681 WP(C) NOS. 475, 29706, 29774 OF 2017 11 to the provisions of Section 102(2) of the Act, read along with provisions of section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the petitioners had an obligation to refund the tax collected as above to the recipient of the supply and also to file an affidavit in that regard along with the applications for refund. In the case at hand, I notice that the refund applications have been filed, pointing out that out of the total liability paid, a particular amount has been collected from MES/CPWD, and the same would have to be refunded ultimately to MES/CPWD, and it is only the balance that is to be refunded to the petitioner. As regards the 4 th petitioner in W.P(C) No. 475 of 2017, the application at Ext.P9 contains the following declaration: -
"7. I/We declare that the duty for which refund has been claimed has not been charged/realised from any other person and a copy of the price-list, relevant Gate Pass (Central Excise) like documents and invoices are enclosed. (Total Service Tax and interest paid was 1,15,52,738/-. Out of this Rs. 1,09,11,243/- was refunded from Military Engineering Services Department which may be refunded to them and the balance of Rs. 6,41,495/- may be refunded to us.)"
9. However, while considering the afore application, the Assistant Commissioner, by Ext.P4 in WP(C) No. 29706 of 2017, 2025:KER:52681 WP(C) NOS. 475, 29706, 29774 OF 2017 12 has concluded that the petitioner has not been able to prove that there was no unjust enrichment in the case at hand, merely by providing a declaration to the above effect in the application for refund. Reference is also made to the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in that regard.
10. In this connection, I notice the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Alwaye Sugar Agency v. Asst. Commissioner (ASSMNT)[2017 (4) KLT 794] , wherein it has been held as under: -
"Although taxing statutes must receive a strict interpretation, designed as they are to exact money from a citizen so as to finance Government expenditure, the interpretation cannot be a reckless one, mindless of the probable impact that it could have on tax paying assessees or, as in the instant case, members of the trading community. To err is human, more so in accountancy, and unless it is established that the accounting lapse was the result of a willful omission or suppression with an intent to evade tax, the trade tax authorities in a civilized society should give due regard to the dignity of the members of the trading community and be more accommodative to reasonable requests for regularising technical omissions with a view to ensuring tax compliance. Ralph Waldo Emerson famously remarked that 'a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of the 2025:KER:52681 WP(C) NOS. 475, 29706, 29774 OF 2017 13 mediocre mind'. In a similar vein, a mechanical application of procedural provisions in a Taxing Statute, without considering the purpose for which they were inserted in the Statute, does not augur well for the reputation of the tax man, whose attitude must change with the times, so that citizens see him more as a facilitator for tax compliance rather than a legally empowered money snatcher."
The afore judgment was carried in appeal by the revenue and the Division Bench of this Court in Commercial Tax Officer v. Varghese [2018 (3) KLT 468], while confirming the judgment of the Single Judge, made the following further observations: -
"9.....It is high time the Officers of the Department rose up from their mediocre mind set and became facilitators of finance and commerce aiding the economic advancement of the Nation rather than reducing themselves to mere tax collectors and target achievers. The taxing statute is not an instrument of oppression and has to be treated as one enabling trade and commerce; which at the same time fetch revenue for the State to be employed in discharging its various activities and obligations to the citizen. Without enterprise, there would be no revenue and if the source is choked, it would be akin to killing the proverbial hen that lays the golden eggs. It is time the Department and its officers woke up to the 2025:KER:52681 WP(C) NOS. 475, 29706, 29774 OF 2017 14 economic realities and resort to a more practical and pragmatic approach in proceeding under and enforcing the tax enactment to have a complete make over from the image of oppressors to that of facilitators."
11. It is with reference to the touchstone of the principles laid down in the afore judgments that the respective contentions in these writ petitions have to be evaluated.
12. Though with reference to the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the 4 th respondent in WP(C) No. 29706 of 2017 cannot be said to be unjustified in passing an order in the nature of the one at Ext.P4, I notice that the service recipient in the case at hand was the MES/CPWD. Had there been any service provided by the respective petitioners to a private party, the reference made to the provisions of Section 11B would have been a good reason for rejecting the claim for refund. But in the case at hand, the petitioner has specifically pointed out in the application for refund that the service recipient is none other than the MES/CPWD - another organ of the Central Government. That being so, I am of the opinion that the authority under the statute had an obligation to inform the petitioners in these cases as to the requirement for making repayment of the amounts directly and then seeking a refund, or in the alternative, making 2025:KER:52681 WP(C) NOS. 475, 29706, 29774 OF 2017 15 payment of the entire amount refundable to the MES/CPWD as specifically pointed out in the application for refund, directly to MES/CPWD and paying only the balance, if any, to the petitioners. However, while issuing the impugned order at Ext.P4, the 4th respondent in WP(C) No. 29706 of 2017 has not chosen to do so.
13. I also notice that as regards the petitioner in WP(C) No. 29706 of 2017, he has chosen to rely on a subsequent communication obtained from MES/CPWD dated 28.02.2017, produced as Ext.P5 in the writ petition, pointing out that the refund may be effected directly to the MES/CPWD. I am of the opinion that when such a specific request, though made subsequently, is before the department, it is for the department to take note of the same, especially when it is submitted by another department of the Central Government itself.
14. I also notice the judgment of the Apex Court in Corporation Bank v. M/s. Saraswati Abharansala and Another [2009 (1) SCC 540], wherein on almost similar circumstances, the Apex Court considered the refusal to refund on the ground of unjust enrichment, holding that a purposive interpretation should be carried out with reference to the notification on the basis of which the claim for refund was made 2025:KER:52681 WP(C) NOS. 475, 29706, 29774 OF 2017 16 in that case. Applying the ratio of the afore judgment, I am of the opinion that in the cases at hand, the petitioners have only sought to rely on the provisions entitling them to exemption by virtue of the Act. When that be so, it was for the authority under the statute to have noticed the intention behind the extension of the exemption and passed an order accordingly.
In the light of all the above, I am of the opinion that these writ petitions are only to be disposed of as under: -
i. Ext. P4 in WP(C) No. 29706 of 2017 and WP(C) No. 29774 of 2017 are set aside.
ii. The 4th respondent in W.P(C) No. 29706 of 2017 and W.P(C) No. 29774 of 2017 is directed to reconsider the claim for refund made by the respective petitioners, with specific reference to Ext.P5 request made from the side of MES/CPWD dated 28.02.2007. Insofar as it is admitted that no such representation has been made with reference to the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 29774 of 2017, I direct the 4th respondent therein to take note of a similar request made in W.P(C) No. 29706 of 2017 and refund the amount payable to the MES/CPWD, as pointed out by the petitioners in their respective applications, as expeditiously as possible, within a 2025:KER:52681 WP(C) NOS. 475, 29706, 29774 OF 2017 17 period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
iii. If any further amount remains in excess after transferring the amounts to MES/CPWD, the same shall be refunded to the respective petitioners.
iv. As regards the petitioners 5 to 8 in WP(C) No. 475 of 2017, the 4th respondent or competent among the respondents shall consider the claim for refund and act in accordance with the directions contained in serial No.
(ii) and (iii) above.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE GBG 2025:KER:52681 WP(C) NOS. 475, 29706, 29774 OF 2017 18 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29706/2017 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF SECTION 159 OF THE FINANCE ACT, 2016 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.
66546/MANUAL/659/E8 DATED 17.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR (CONTRACTS) MES EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO. R DATED 7.11.2016 WITH ANNEXURE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3A TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 7.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN ORIGINAL NO.
33/2007 (R) DATED 3.2.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.
8025/22/E8 DATED 28.2.2017 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT 2025:KER:52681 WP(C) NOS. 475, 29706, 29774 OF 2017 19 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29774/2017 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF SECTION 59 OF THE FINANCE ACT, 2016.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.
23(255) CHCD/17/2628 DTED 22.8.2017 ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO. R DATED 01.11.2016 WITH ANNEXURE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER NO.
PPJC/A/216 DATED 01.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN ORIGINAL NO.
29/2017 DATED 28.2.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
2025:KER:52681
WP(C) NOS. 475, 29706, 29774 OF 2017
20
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 475/2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR
NO.66546/MANUAL/508/E8 DATED 10.02.2016 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR(CONTRACTS), MES. EXHIBIT P2 RELEVANT PAGES OF SECTION 159 OF THE FINANCE ACT, 2016.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.32 DATED 25.8.2016 ISSUED BY MES BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.8050/1126/E8 DATED 24.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.66546/MANUAL/659/E8 DATED 17.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF CONTRACT MANAGEMENT, MES.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO R DATED 07.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER NO.CB/GC/016-017/126 DATED 07.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO R DATED 07.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER NO A2Z/ST/02 DATED 08.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO R DATED 01.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8(A) TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER NO PPJC/A/216 DATED 01.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO R DATED 07.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9(A) TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 07.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO R DATED 2025:KER:52681 WP(C) NOS. 475, 29706, 29774 OF 2017 21 31.10.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10(A) TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO R DATED 1.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO R DATED 8.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO R DATED 10.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P12(A) TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER NO MIM/2016-2017/568 DATED10.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO R DATED 8.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 8TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO 800/ST/07/E8 DATED 02.11.2016 ISSUED BY THE 10TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.8122/217/E8 DATED 25.10.2016 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.11.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CB/GC/016- 017/127 DATED 24.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 11TH RESPONDENT.