National Building Construction ... vs Deputy Labour ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 3438 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C.) No. 11257/2009

%                 Date of Decision: 28th August, 2009


# NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED
                                         ..... PETITIONER

!                 Through: Mr. K.K. Rai, Sr. Adv with
                           Mr. Inder Jit Singh, Advocate.

                                   VERSUS

$ DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER-CUM-CESS COLLECTOR, GOVT.
OF NCT OF DELHI & ANOTHER
                                      .....RESPONDENTS

^                 Through:   Mr. Amitabh Marwah, Advocate.


CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? NO

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?NO

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?NO

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

The National Building Construction Corporation Limited

(petitioner herein) in this writ petition seeks to challenge an order

dated 02.03.2009 passed by the Competent Authority under the

Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996

directing the petitioner to pay one per cent cess amounting to

Rs. 128.91 Lakhs in respect of construction work carried out from

1996 to 14.08.2005 within 15 days of the said order.

2. Mr. K.K. Rai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner, contends that the liability for payment of one per cent

cess under the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare

Cess Act, 1996 accrued only in terms of the notification of the

Government dated 02.09.2002 on the subject in issue. The learned

senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that

since vide impugned order, the Competent Authority under the

Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996

has assessed one per cent cess on the petitioner from 1996, the

said assessment is without jurisdiction. It is further submitted by

him that there is an error apparent on the face of the impugned

order regarding the date from which cess could be legally assessed

by the petitioner.

3. Mr. Amitabh Marwah is present on behalf of the respondents

and he has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of

the present writ petition stating that the Act provides a remedy of

appeal against the impugned order.

4. At this stage, counsel for both the parties have agreed for

passing of a consent order in the matter. The learned senior

counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that as there

is an error apparent on the face of the impugned order regarding

the date from which the petitioner is liable to pay cess, the

petitioner will file a review application before the Competent

Authority, who has passed the impugned order and point out the

error in the said order.

5. Mr. Amitabh Marwah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondents, submits that in case, any review application is

filed by the petitioner, the same will be considered by a speaking

order.

6. In view of the above submissions made by the counsel for the

parties, this writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty for the

petitioner to file a review application before the Competent

Authority within two weeks and in case, any such review application

is filed by the petitioner, the Competent Authority is directed to

consider and decide the same by a speaking order.

AUGUST 28, 2009                            S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'bsr'