Disposed

Ruchi Goyal & Anr. v. Nbcc(India) Ltd.{Formerly National Building Construction Corporation Ltd.} & Ors.

Delhi HC12 Dec 2018W.P.(C)/949/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an application for condonation of delay in filing and refiling a review petition. A subsequent review petition challenging a decision on tax legislation validity was dismissed as the cited statutory amendment did not apply to the specific legal provision in question.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay allowed. Review petition dismissed.

Ruchi Goyal & Anr. Vs Nbcc(India) Ltd.{Formerly… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~S1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- WP(C) 949/2018 RUCHI GOYAL & ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Rajan Bhatia, Advocate

¶4

versus NBCC(INDIA) LTD.{FORMERLY NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD.} & ORS...... Respondents Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Sr.Standing Counsel with Ms.Suhani Mathur, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr. Anil Dabas with Mr.Praveen Kumar, Advocates for UOI.

¶5

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶6

O R D E R

¶7

% 22.07.2019

¶8

CM APPLs.20748/2019 (delay) and 20749/2019 (delay)

¶9

For the reasons explained in the applications, the delay in filing and refiling the review petition is condoned and the applications are allowed.

¶10

REVIEW PET.187/2019

¶11

This review petition by the Principal Commissioner, GST and CX Commissionerate Respondent is premised on the ground that when this petition was heard and allowed by the order dated 12^th December 2018 following the earlier decision of this Court in Suresh Kumar Bansal v. UOI (2016) 137 DTR (Del.) 145 the attention of the Court was not drawn to the fact that Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006

¶12

Rev Pet. 187/2019 in WP(C) 949/2018 Page 1 of 3

¶13

(‘Rules’) had itself undergone an amendment. It is pointed out that on 31^st March 2017 an amendment was made to the 6^th Schedule to the Finance Act, 2017 whereby Rule 2A of the Rules was amended to provide for a mechanism to separately determine the value of the land and the value of the goods for the purposes of a works contract. In other words, it is pointed out that since the machinery provisions for determining the extent and the value of the goods and the land or any undivided share in the land separately has now been provided in Rule 2A, the very basis on which this Court struck down Section 65 (105) (zzzh) of the Finance Act, 2010 in Suresh Kumar Bansal ( supra ) stood removed.

¶14

Mr. Rajan Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent, on the other hand points out that the amendment to Rule 2A of the Rules would not apply to the case of the Respondent since Section 65 (105) (zzzh) specifically deals with 'construction of complex' whereas Rule 2A is specific to a works contract which forms subject matter of Section 65 (105) (zzzza) of the Finance Act, 2010.

¶15

It does appear to the Court that the amendment to Rule 2A is specific to a works contract since the title of Rule 2A itself reads 'determination of value of service portion in the execution of the works contract.' In para 23 of the decision of this Court in Suresh Kumar Bansal ( supra ), this Court noted that while Section65(105)(zzzza) deals with works contract and it is possible to argue that a composite contract for the development of complex and sale of units could fall within its scope,this Court did not propose to examine that issue since the entire argument revolved around the scope of taxable service

¶16

Rev Pet. 187/2019 in WP(C) 949/2018 Page 2 of 3

¶17

as envisaged in Section 65 (105) (zzzh) of the Finance Act, 2010 which is specific to ‘construction of complex’. Therefore, there is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent that the amendment to Rule 2A of the Rules would not advance the case of the Respondents/Review Petitioners.

¶18

There is no other ground urged in the review petition. The review petition is dismissed.

¶19

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

¶20

PRATEEK JALAN, J.

¶21

JULY 22, 2019 tr

Ruchi Goyal & Anr. v. Nbcc(India) Ltd.{Formerly National Building Construction Corporation Ltd.} & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ruchi Goyal & Anr. v. Nbcc(India) Ltd.{Formerly National Building Construction Corporation Ltd.} & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

F.S.Chauhan Vs UOI & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Kundan

Union of India & Ors. Vs Rajo

D.T.C. Thr. Its Chairman Vs Vijay Kumar

Venkatesh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ct/Gd Srinivas Gali Vs Central Industrial Security Force and Ors.

Rajinder Mahajan Vs Registrar, Delhi Cooperative Societies & Ors.

Arun Saxena & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

A S Exports through Proprietor Vs Commissioner of Customs

Naresh Kumar Proprietor M/S Falcon Movers Vs Commissioner of Customs

Friends Metallodrome Pvt.Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Trade & Taxes & Anr.

M/S B B Consturction Vs the General Manager & Ors.

Lt Col (Retd) H S Bedi & Anr. Vs M/S North Star Apartment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Ram Pyari Devi Charitable Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), New Delhi & Ors.