Bombay High Court
Voltas Ltd. And Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 24 March, 2026
Author: S. M. Modak
Bench: S. M. Modak
2026:BHC-OS:7284-DB
12. WP 2013 of 2018.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2013 OF 2018
Voltas Ltd. And Anr. ...Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
and Anr. ...Respondents
ALONGWITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 9260 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2013 OF 2018
Voltas Ltd. ...Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
Through Govt. Pleader Orig.
Side ...Respondents
*****
Ms. Ambareen Mujawar Advocate for the Petitioners
a/w Mr. Rajveer Veera i/by
AZB and Partners
Adv. Himanshu Takke AGP for the Respondent-State
*****
CORAM : S. M. MODAK AND
SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
DATE : 24th MARCH 2026
Digitally
signed by
SEEMA
SEEMA KSHITIJ
KSHITIJ YELKAR
Date:
YELKAR 2026.03.26
11:24:33
+0530
Seema 1/8
::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2026 20:48:31 :::
12. WP 2013 of 2018.doc
P. C. :-
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the Petitioners challenge the Notification dated 18.08.2017
issued by Industries, Energy and Labour Department, Government of
Maharashtra in exercise of powers conferred under Section 2 (d) of the
Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employees
and Condition of Service) Act, 1996. (BOCW Act)
2. The Petitioners also challenge the Inspection Notice dated
14.03.2018 at Exhibit 'I', Show Cause Notice dated 26.03.2018 at
Exhibit 'K' and letter dated 24.04.2018 at Exhibit 'M'. The challenge
to the Inspection Notice, Show Cause Notice and Letter at Exhibits I,
K and M is raised by the Petitioners as the Respondents had initiated
action against the Petitioners in respect of the contract undertaken by
them for installation of HVAC plant at Dhirubhai Ambani
International Convention and Exhibition Center, BKC, Bandra (East),
Mumbai.
3. By interim order dated 04.05.2018, this Court restrained the
Respondents from taking any coercive steps against the Petitioners.
4. We have heard Ms. Mujawar, learned advocate appearing for the
Seema 2/8
::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2026 20:48:31 :::
12. WP 2013 of 2018.doc
Petitioners and Mr. Takke, learned AGP appearing for the Respondent-
State.
5. At the outset Ms. Mujawar, prays for leave of the Court to add
Universal MEP Projects and Engineering Service Limited and Mr.
Nikhil Chandarana as Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, by inviting attention of
the Court to the Interim Application No. 9260 of 2026. It appears that
activity of the Petitioners is now undertaken by the proposed
Petitioners. Accordingly, Universal MEP Projects and Engineering
Service Limited and Mr. Nikhil Chandarana are permitted to be added
as Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 in the petition. Amendment to be carried
out forthwith. Reverification is dispensed with. Accordingly, Interim
Application No. 9260 of 2026 is disposed of.
6. Ms. Mujawar, learned advocate submits that the issue involved in
the present petition is no more res integra and it is covered by the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Uttar Pradesh Power
Transmission Corporation Ltd. and Ors. Vs. CG Power and Industrial
Solutions Ltd. and Ors.1. We have gone through the judgment in Uttar
Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. and Ors . (supra) in
1 (2021) 6 SCC 15.
Seema 3/8
::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2026 20:48:31 :::
12. WP 2013 of 2018.doc
which the issue before the Apex Court was Whether a contractor who
enters into a pure supply contract is statutorily exempted from levy
under BOCW Act? The Apex Court has answered the issue in para
Nos. 53 and 54 of the judgment by holding as under :-
53. Cess under the Cess Act read with the BOCW Act is
leviable in b respect of building and other construction
works. The condition precedent for imposition of cess
under the Cess Act is the construction, repair,
demolition or maintenance of and/or in relation to a
building or any other work of construction,
transmission towers, in relation inter alia to generation,
transmission and distribution of power, electric lines,
pipelines, etc. Mere installation and/or erection of
pipelines, equipments for generation or transmission or
distribution of power, electric wires, transmission
towers, etc. which do not involve construction work are
not amenable to cess under the Cess Act. Accordingly
no intimation or information was given or any return
filed with the assessing officer under the Cess Act or the
Inspector under the BOCW Act in respect of the first
and second contracts, either by UPPTCL or by
Respondent 1.
54. A contractor who enters into a pure supply contract is
statutorily exempted from levy under the BOCW Act.
The contract in question is a supply contract as would
be evident from Clause 8.7 of the Special Conditions of
Contract which states:
"The contract shall be a 'Divisible Contract' with single
point responsibility, hence no works contract tax shall
be payable and the Purchaser shall not bear any liability
on this account."
7. It appears that the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in
Seema 4/8
::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2026 20:48:31 :::
12. WP 2013 of 2018.doc
Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. and Ors . (supra)
has been consistently followed by various High Courts in the case of
Petitioner No. 1-Voltas Limited. Reference in this regard made to the
judgment passed by Single judge of Karnataka High Court in case of
Voltas Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors. in Writ Petition No. 35330 of
2010 decided on 13.08.2021 in which it is held in paragraph nos. 4,5
and 6 as under:-
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that deduction of 1%
cess under the Act, 1996 is impermissible having regard
to the nature of contract read with execution of contract
in supplying, installation, commissioning and Ventilation
and AC system and for installation of electrical work. In
identical circumstances, Apex Court in the case of
UTTAR PRADESH POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER vs CG
POWER AND INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED
AND ANOTHER reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 383
has taken note of Act, 1996 and held that deduction of
1% cess provision is not warranted it would not attract in
respect of supply of materials and where there is no
construction of work. Paragraphs 53 and 54 reads as
under:
"53.....
54.....
5. In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court,
petitioner has made out a case. Accordingly, writ petition
stands allowed in terms of the Apex Court decision cited
Seema 5/8
::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2026 20:48:31 :::
12. WP 2013 of 2018.doc
supra.
6. At this juncture, learned counsel for respondent No.2
submitted on instructions that respondent No.3 has not
remitted the cess collected from the petitioner whereas
learned Senior Counsel submitted on instructions that
petitioner is not keen on refund of 1% cess in the present
case.
8. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Voltas Limited
Vs. The Union of India and Anr. in Writ Petition No. 28861 of 2008
has again decided the same issue and has held in Paragraphs Nos. 12
and 13 of its judgment as under :-
12. In the instant case, second respondent herein, in exercise
of the power conferred under Section 3 of the Cess Act,
issued the impugned notice. Admittedly, the work
entrusted to the petitioner was installation of the Air
Conditioning systems in the Visakhapatnam Airport. It is
also an admitted reality that civil work pertaining to the
Airport was undertaken by some other contractor but not
the petitioner. Therefore, the contention advanced by the
learned counsel for the respondent, in the considered
opinion of this Court, cannot be sustained in the eye of
law. In this context, it may be appropriate to refer to the
judgment cited by the learned Senior Counsel in Uttar
Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Limited's case
(cited supra), Wherein the Honourable Apex Court, at
paragraph No.53, held as follows:
.........
13. In the considered opinion of this Court, the law laid
Seema 6/8
::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2026 20:48:31 :::
12. WP 2013 of 2018.doc
down by the Honourable Apex Court is squarely
applicable to the case on hand. It is also significant to
note in this context that, when a similar issue cropped up,
in respect of the same company, the appropriate
authority-cum-Deputy Labour Commissioner passed an
order bearing No.F/18/BOCWA/SD/2007/CD/64, dated
17.07.2007, holding that the said legislation would not
apply to the petitioner herein and, accordingly, notice
issued was withdrawn.
9. Lastly, the Telangana High Court in case of Voltas Limited Vs.
The Union of India and Ors. in Writ Petition No. 12795 of 2009
decided on 24.08.2022 has once again decided very same issue by
referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in U.P. Power
Transmission Corporation Limited (Supra) and has held in paragraph
no. 12 of the judgment as under :-
12. As observed by the Apex Court in U.P. Power Transmission
Corpn. Ltd.³, the Cess Act read with the Act, 1996 is leviable
in respect of building and other construction works.
Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the
nature of work and activities being carried out by the
petitioner company in terms of E&M Subcontract, dated
01.09.2005 entered between the Contractor and the
petitioner herein, subcontractor will fall under the aforesaid
definition.
10. In our view, therefore, the issue appears fairly settled in the above
judgments, wherein it is repeatedly held that a contractor who enters
Seema 7/8
::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2026 20:48:31 :::
12. WP 2013 of 2018.doc
into a pure supply contract is statutorily exempted from levy under the
BOCW Act.
11. In view of the authoritative pronouncements discussed above,
the inspection notice, Show Cause Notice and letter at Exhibits I, K
and M will have to be necessarily set aside.
12. The petition partly succeeds and we need to pass the following
order :-
ORDER
(i) The impugned notice dated 14.03.2008, Show Cause Notice dated 26.03.2018 and letter dated 24.04.2018 are set aside.
(ii) It is declared that in respect of any contract work undertaken by the Petitioners purely for supply of item Nos. (5), (6) and (7) of the Notification dated 18.08.2017, provisions of the BOW Act cannot be enforced against the Petitioners.
13. The Writ Petition is party allowed with the above directions.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (S. M. MODAK, J.) Seema 8/8 ::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2026 20:48:31 :::