Disposed

A2Z Engineers and Pile Foundation v. Controller of Defence Accounts

Kerala HC1 Oct 2020WP(C)/13016/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a Class S contractor, challenged failure of Controller of Defence Accounts to reimburse Service Tax wrongly deducted from final receipts during a naval base construction project. The court directed authorities to decide the tax liability after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Controller of Defence Accounts to decide on the Service Tax liability after hearing the petitioner within two months.

A2Z Engineers and Pile Foundation Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 9TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.13016 OF 2020(B)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

A2Z ENGINEERS & PILE FOUNDATION MUMDAMVELI, KOCHI - 682 007, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. MEJULAL.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN SMT.UMMUL FIDA SMT.LAKSHMI SREEDHAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS NO.618, ANNA SALAI, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI - 600 018.

¶11

2 CHIEF COMMISSIONER CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, COCHIN COMMISSIONERATE, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I. S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018.

¶12

3 CHIEF ENGINEER (NAVEL WORKS) MILITARY ENGINEER SERVICE, SOUTHERN NAVEL COMMAND, NAVEL BASE, KOCHI - 682 005.

¶13

4 GARRISON ENGINEER (P) MILITARY ENGINEER SERVICE, SOUTHERN NAVEL COMMAND, NAVEL BASE, KOCHI - 682 005.

¶14

R1-4 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.13016 OF 2020(B)

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

dated this the 1^st day of October, 2020

¶20

Petitioner a proprietorship concern engaged in

¶21

the business of construction and is enlisted as “S

¶22

Class” contractor of Military Engineer Services. In the year 2014, he was awarded a contract for construction of 'Provision of Deficient Single Living Accn including Galley and Dining Facilities for all Ranks for Refit Ships at Naval Base, Kochi'. The Chief Engineer, MES Southern Naval Command, Kochi, 3^rd respondent did not deny that Entry 12A was inserted to Notification NO.25/2012 – Service Tax, by which the works contract to the Governmental agencies, prior to 01-03-2015 are

¶23

entitled to exemption from Service Tax.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶25

petitioner submits that though at the time of

¶26

entering into the contract, the petitioner did not

¶27

have to pay an amount of Service Tax, a sum of

¶28

WP(C).No.13016 OF 2020(B)

¶29

¶30

Rs.10,65,168/- was remitted with the 2^nd respondent during the currency of the contract as directed by the 3^rd and 4^th respondents which was later

¶31

reimbursed by the 3^rd and 4^th respondents.

¶32

By virtue of the amendment to the Finance Act, 1994, 3^rd and 4^th respondents directed the petitioner to repay the Service tax already reimbursed, which was paid. However, while clearing the final Running Account Receipts the 3^rd and 4^th respondents mistakenly deducted Service Tax, which was questioned by the petitioner vide Ext.P2

¶33

dated 10.05.2019. In reply, Ext.P3 progress hand receipt was issued, directing the petitioner to get reimbursement from the 1^st respondent. Reminder

¶34

letters as Exts.P4 and P5 dated 1.11.2019 & 07.02.2020 have been submitted by the petitioner to the 1^st respondent, but no action has been taken,so far.

¶35

There is no representation on behalf of the

¶36

respondents. Without expressing anything on

¶37

WP(C).No.13016 OF 2020(B)

¶38

contentions on merits, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the 1^st respondent to take a call on Exts.P4 and P5 representations regarding the liability or

¶39

otherwise of the petitioner to pay the Service Tax

¶40

in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to refer all the

¶41

provisions of law and produce documents, if any. The entire exercise to be undertaken within a

¶42

period of two months.

¶43

Writ Petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

WP(C).No.13016 OF 2020(B)

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX

¶51

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶52

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACTOR'S ORDER SHEET ISSUED BY THE GARRISON ENGINEER (NW) DATED 12.02.2015. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FOURTH RESPONDENT DATED 10.05.2019. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROGRESS HAND RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 01.11.2019. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 07.02.2020.

¶53

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶54

¶55

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

A2Z Engineers and Pile Foundation v. Controller of Defence Accounts

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A2Z Engineers and Pile Foundation v. Controller of Defence Accounts

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arsharani P T., Vs Principal

Praveen Kumar P. Vs National University of Advance Legal Studies

The Principal, Karuna Medical College Vs the Kerala University of Health Sciences

Dr.G.Renuka Vs University of Kerala

Harikrishnan.G Vs State of Kerala

Binimol.K.G Vs State of Kerala