Chattisgarh High Court
Bscpl Infrastructure Ltd vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors on 18 February, 2025
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPT No. 43 of 2013
Avinash Developers Pvt. Ltd. versus State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors
PRIYANKA
VERMA
WPT/162/2014
Order Sheet
18/02/2025 Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate along with Ms. Dayna
Bajrang, counsel for the petitioner in WPT No. 43/2013.
Mr. Amrito Das, counsel for the petitioner in WPT
No.162/2014.
Ms. Anuradha Jain, PL for the State.
At the outset, learned counsel for the State submits that
in both these Writ Petitions, similar ground has been raised
that the Chhattisgarh Building and Other Construction
Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of
Service) Rules, 2008, was notified in the Official Gazette by
the CG State Government in the year 2008 and therefore, the
State has no authority to recover cess under the Building and
Other Construction Welfare Cess Act, 1996 (for short, "the
BOCW Act") from the contractors particularly when the
agreement has been executed prior to notification of the said
Rules. She would further submit that the said issue no longer
res integra as the same has been decided in the matter of A.
Prabhakara Reddy and Company vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh and others, (2016) 1 SCC 600, whereby, the law
has been explained that the cess on construction works under
the BOCW Act should be imposed even prior to the date of
constitution of the State Board. Rendering the service to the
workers is not required to be a condition precedent for the
levy of the cess. She further submits that the rendering of
welfare services can reasonably be undertaken only after the
cess is levied, collected and credited to the welfare fund and
the said beneficial measures for the welfare of the workers
are applicable even to the construction activity, which may
have commenced before coming into force of the BOCW Act
and the Cess Act, if they are subsequently covered by the
provisions of these Acts and thus refers to Para-14 of the said
judgment, which reads thus:-
"14.We also find no merit in other
submission advanced on behalf of the
appellants that there is legal impediment
in charging levy on the cost of
construction incurred by the employer
from a particular period on account of
constitution of Board from a particular
date or for any other reason. This
argument is fallacious. Such beneficial
measures for the welfare of workers are
applicable even to the construction
activity which may have commenced
before coming into force of the BOCW
Act and the Cess Act, if they are
subsequently covered by the provisions
of these Acts. There can be no legal
obstacle in ignoring the construction cost
incurred before the cess became leviable
by distinguishing it from the cost of
construction incurred later, from a date
when the Board is available to render
service to the Building and other
construction workers. The levy of cess in
these facts and circumstances cannot be
faulted for any reason. The demand of
cess in the given facts cannot amount to
retrospective application of the Cess Act.
Hence the appeals must fail."
Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
in the matter of Gammon Rizzani (JV) vs. Delhi Metro
Rail Corporation Limited in Civil Appeal No.7141/2012
(order dated 16.11.2015), a question arose as to whether the
ratio laid down in the matter of Dewan Chand Builders and
Contractors vs. Union of India, (2012) 1 SCC 101, in
which a view has been taken that the Cess Act is not
applicable retrospectively, is correct or not, which is still
pending consideration.
Learned counsel for the State would also agree with
the same.
List this matter after 10 weeks. However, both the
parties are directed that as and when any order is passed in
the said matter, the copy of the same shall be filed and it
shall also be brought to the notice of this Court.
Interim relief granted earlier shall continue till the next
date of hearing.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge
Priyanka
