[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Ms Hero Moto Corp Limited vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 1 April, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Office Notes, reports, orders or
SL.
Date proceedings or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with Signatures
WPMS No.780 of 2026
MS Hero Moto Corp Limited ..........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others .....Respondent
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior Advocate assisted
by Mr. Rohit Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Devendra Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the
State/respondent nos.1 & 2.
3. Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel with Mr.
Rahul Consul, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
4. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the
petitioner-factory has put to challenge the Assessment
Order Dated 06.12.2025, annexure-2 to the writ petition as
well as the recovery notice dated 10.02.2026, annexure-11
to the writ petition amongst other orders, whereby the
labour cess under the provisions of Building and other
Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996 (Act No.28 of
1996) have been imposed and the recovery proceedings
have been initiated pursuant to the impugned orders
annexure-2 & 11 to the writ petition.
5. The main ground on which the orders impugned have
been challenged is that petitioner is a Factory and does not
fall within the definition of "Building or other construction
work" as defined under Section 2(d) of the Building and
other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employee and
Condition of Service) Act, 1996.
6. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner-Factory
elaborated the argument stating that the labour cess can
be levied only on the building or other construction work in
view of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act No.28 of 1996.
7. Since the petitioner does not fall within the definition
of "building and other constructions work", therefore, the
cess cannot be assessed upon the petitioner.
8. He further submits that in the notice itself, it has
been stated by respondent no.3 that the construction work
was done by the petitioner-Factory in the year 2005-2018
for which notice was sent only in the year 2025.
9. It is contended by learned Senior Advocate for the
petitioner-Factory that such a proceeding cannot be
initiated against the petitioner-Factory at this belated stage
after expiry of more than almost seven years of
construction allegedly raised by the petitioner-Factory.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits
that the order impugned in the present writ petition is
appealable under the provisions of Section 11 of the Act
No.28 of 1996. He further submits that out of the labour
cess, i.e., Rs. 2,73,96,164/-, the petitioner has deposited
Rs. 1,61,50,000/-, and is now challenging the order, after
part payment of the labour cess, only on technical grounds.
Therefore, the writ court should not exercise its jurisdiction,
and the matter should be relegated to be filed before the
appellate authority.
11. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner-Factory
submits that the amount was deposited by the petitioner as
the petitioner-factory was not aware about the
non-applicability of the Act to it; therefore, almost 60% of
the cess amount was deposited. However, he further
submits that there would not be estoppel against the law,
and the impugned order is challenged on the ground of
jurisdiction.
12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the relevant provisions as referred by learned
Senior Advocate for the petitioner-Factory, this Court is of
the view that submission made by learned Senior Advocate
has some force and substance which can be deliberated in
detail after calling the counter affidavit(s) from the
respondent(s).
13. Counsel for the respondent(s) may file their counter
affidavit(s) within six weeks.
14. List on 04.05.2026.
15. In the meantime, recovery proceedings for the balance
cess shall remain stayed.
16. Interim relief application (IA No.1/2026) stands
disposed of accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
01.04.2026
AK
