Dismissed¶38

M/S. Bansal Construction Co. v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC12 Feb 2026CW/19073/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Service tax recovery from construction contractor; Clause 36C of agreement; show-cause notice held not required where agreement has specific service-tax payment clause; ex-parte recovery orders dated 16.03.2018 (RCDF order numbers); Section 68 Finance Act 1994; Societies Registration Act 1860 registration of Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation; writ petitions dismissed; Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Division Bench; Inderjeet Singh and Ravi Chirania JJ.; 12/02/2026.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of a show-cause notice is not required where there is a specific clause in the agreement for payment of service tax by the petitioner. ¶35

M/S. Bansal Construction Co. Vs Union of India — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:6749-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11294/2018

¶4

M/s. Shree Ganpati Construction Through Its Proprietor Shri Sharwan Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Bakhtawar, Resident Of Plot No. 1, Manoharpura, Jagatpura, Jaipur Raj.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union Of India Through Chief Commissioner Of Cgst, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur Raj.

¶8

Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Through Its Manager Projects, Saras Sankul, Jln Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur Raj.

¶9

General Manager, Dpm And Projects Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd., Saras Sankul, Jln Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur Raj.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19073/2018

¶13

M/s. Bansal Construction Co., Through Its Proprietor Shri Subhash Bansal S/o. Shri Pooran Chand Bansal, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of 2/07, Jawahar Nagar, HB Colony, Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶14

----Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

Union Of India, Through Chief Commissioner Of Cgst, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶17

Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd., Through Its Manager (Projects) Saras Sankul, Jln Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶18

General Manager, Dpm And Projects, Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Saras Sankul, Jln Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶19

----Respondents

¶20

[2026:RJ-JP:6749-DB]	(2 of 4) [CW-11294/2018]
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Daksh Pareek
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Kinshuk Jain, Sr. Counsel Mr. Kapil Sharma with Mr. Divyanshu Charan Ms. Kalpana for Ms. Anita Aggarwal

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

¶22

Order

¶23

12/02/2026

¶24

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

¶25

“a) to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction to set aside, quash and drop the impugned ex-parte recovery order 18/52612-14 DATED NO.RCDF/PROJ./C-403411/2017-16.3.2018 AND ORDER NO.RCDF/PROJ./C4034-11/2017-18/52603-05 DATED 16.03.2018 and subsequent consequential proceedings for recovery of dues against the outstanding bills and security deposit. b) to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction to direct the respondents to release the payment towards the work order and release the security deposit as the work has been successfully performed.

¶26

(c) to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction for awarding appropriate interest and cost towards the illegal retention and harassment cause to the petitioner as deem fit by the Hon'ble Court.

[2026:RJ-JP:6749-DB]

[CW-11294/2018]

(3 of 4)

d) pass any such other order or orders as may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case in the favour of the petitioner.”

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have no right to issue the recovery order dated 16.03.2018. Learned counsel submits that in view of Section 68 of the Finance Act of 1994 the respondents cannot make any recovery because the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not covered under the definition of business entity registered as ‘ corporate body’ and the same has been registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

¶32

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 opposed the submissions and submitted that as per Clause 36C of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent Nos.2 and 3, the petitioner is liable to pay sale tax and other taxes.

¶33

Admittedly, the contract was awarded to the petitioner for construction of building, etc. and the respondents issued notice to pay the service tax, which they have been entitled to collect from the petitioner in view of Clause 36C of the agreement.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recovery has been made without issuance of the show-cause notice. In our considered view issuance of show-cause notice is not required when there is a specific Clause in the agreement for payment of service tax by the petitioner.

(4 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:6749-DB]

[CW-11294/2018]

Since, the petitioner has signed the contract-agreement with his open eyes, no case is made out for interference. Hence, these writ petitions are dismissed.

¶39

(RAVI CHIRANIA),J

¶40

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶41

Dushyant/63-64

M/S. Bansal Construction Co. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Bansal Construction Co. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijendra Singh S/O Jagdish Prasad Vs the State of Rajasthan

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs Laxmi Kant Sharma and Ors.

Rajender Kumar S/O Shri Mani Ram Yadav Vs the State of Rajasthan

Lokesh S/O Sanjay Chauhan Vs State of Rajasthan

Hitesh Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Murari Lal Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bhujpal Meena S/O Shri Prahalad Vs State of Rajasthan