Rr Thulasi Builders (I) Pvt. v. The Superintending
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and W.M.P.Nos.13418 & 13419 of 2017 RR Thulasi Builders (I) Pvt. Ltd Old No.18 New No.25 11th Avenue, Ashok Nagar Chennai - 600 083.
Rep. by its Executive Director R. R.Sathiyamurthi
...Petitioner
-Vs1. The Superintending Engineer, PWD Building ( C&M) circle, Kumarasampatty Post, Salem - 636 007.
2. The Executive Engineer, PWD Buildings (C&M) Division, Dharmapuri.
3. The Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, PWD, Secretariat, Chennai- 600 009.
...Respondents
1/6
Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to consider petitioners representations dated 04.04.2017 and 08.07.2017 and direct the respondents to reimburse the service Tax amount to a sum of Rs.1,40,35,735/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Lakhs Thirty five Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Five Only) paid by the petitioner on behalf of the respondents in terms of Letter No.1438 / 2017 /A5 dated 10.02.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.P.Vijayakumar For Respondent : Mr.Haja Nazirudeen, AGP, assisted by Alagu Goutham, Government Advocate [R.1 to R.3]
O R D E R
The grievance of the writ petitioner is that they have executed construction works pursuant to the contract awarded to the petitioner by the Public Works Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that Service Tax has been paid in excess which is otherwise not contemplated under the terms and conditions of the contract. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of the Service Tax collected from the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court with reference to the order passed by the Executing Engineer PWD Buildings 2/6
(Construction and Maintenance Division) dated 10.02.2017 wherein the Authority made an observation that "Service Tax paid by the firm has to be reimbursed" as per Service Tax notification No.9/2017 by the Department. Again it is reiterated that as a service receiver, PWD Department has to reimburse the above amount of Rs.1,40,35,735/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Lakhs Thirty five Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Five Only) to the petitioner/company. Relying on the above letter, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the representations submitted by the petitioner on 04.04.2017 and 08.07.2017 seeking reimbursement of the Service Tax collected is yet to be considered by the respondent. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the issues raised by the petitioner were considered by the Patna High Court in the case of Multi Engineering and Scientific Corporation Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Pat 1845. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise objections in respect of the judgement and also the facts involved in the case of the petitioner.
3/6
4. This Court cannot adjudicate the disputed facts between the parties. The contractual obligations or the disputed issues have to be decided by the competent authorities at the first instance and in the present case, the petitioner is relying on the letter given by the Executive Engineer for reimbursement of Service Tax and therefore it is to be considered based on the representations.
5. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent is directed to consider the representations submitted by the writ petitioner on 04.04.2017 and 08.07.2017 and pass appropriate orders on merit and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
6. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
(shr) 27.03.2023 Index : Yes/No Speaking / Non Speaking Order 4/6
To The Tahsildar cum Executive Magistrate, Mylapore Taluk, Chennai - 600028.
5/6
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM . J., (shr) 27.03.2023 (1/5) 6/6