Back
Sanjay Yadav, J.
KBL-Koya-VA Tech (M/s.) v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No. 6667 of 2008 (Jabalpur); Decided on 24.11.2008.
Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 17.1.2008, whereby 1 % welfare cess has been deducted at source on the approximate value of work done up to 17.1.2008 excluding the measuring-up additions and alteration. Assail is on the ground that under section 3 of the Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1996) levy and collection of cess is on the cost of construction incurred by an employer and not on the approximate value of work done. It is urged that value and cost being the different percepts, operates in different field. Whereas the cost of construction, it is urged, denotes the actual expenditure, the value connotes the benefit which includes the profit. It is on the basis of these submissions the petitioner questions the validity of the order dated 17.1.2008. [Para 1
Held : It is observed from the impugned order dated 17.1.2008 that amount of advance cess is calculated on the basis of approximate value of work done. The expression "approximate value of work done" draws its meaning from section 3 of the Act of 1996 read with rule 3 of the Rules of 1998. The learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, not correct in his submission that, other than the expenditure incurred by the employer in connection with construction work is being included in the cost. [Para 7
(2) Words and Phrases -- word cost -- means expense; price -- the sum or equivalent expended, paid or charged for something. Blacks Law Dictionary 5th Edn. West relied on. [Para 5
(3) Words and Phrases -- word value -- means "The utility of an object in satisfying directly or indirectly, the needs or desires of human beings, called by economists "value in use" -- or its worth consisting in the power of purchasing other objects called "value in exchange". Blacks Law Dictionary 5th Edn. West relied on. [Para 5
¼1½ Hkou vkSj vU; lfUuekZ.k deZdkj dY;k.k midj vf/kfu;e] 1996 && /kkjk 3 && Hkou vkSj vU; lfUuekZ.k deZdkj dY;k.k midj fu;e] 1998 && fu-3 && fd, x, dk;Z ds vuqekfur ewY; ds vk/kkj ij ifjdfyr fd;k x;k vfxze midj && vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3 ds lkFk ifBr fu;eksa ds fu-3 ds vuqlkj gS && fu;kstd }kjk mixr vU; O;; lfEefyr ugha gSA
izLrqr fjV ;kfpdk esa vk{ksi ml vkns‘k fnukad 17-1-2008 ij gS ftlds }kjk 1% dY;k.k midj fnukad 17-1-2008 rd fd, x, dk;Z ds vuqekfur ewY; lzksr ij ifjekf.kr ifjo/kZu rFkk ifjorZu dk viotZu djds dVkSrh dh xbZ gSA vk{ksi bl vk/kkj ij gS fd Hkou vkSj vU; lfUuekZ.k deZdkj dY;k.k midj vf/kfu;e] 1996 ¼,rr~I‘pkr~ 1996 dk vf/kfu;e ds rkSj ij fufnZ"V½ dh /kkjk 3 ds v/khu midj dk mn~xzg.k vkSj laxzg.k fu;kstd }kjk mixr lfUuekZ.k dh dher ij gS rFkk fd, x, dk;Z ds vuqekfur ewY; ij ugha gSA ;g crk;k x;k fd ewY; rFkk ykxr fHkUu izR;{k oLrq gksus ds dkj.k fHkUu {ks= esa izofrZr gksrs gSaA tcfd lfUuekZ.k dk O;;] bl ckr ij cy fn;k x;k fd] okLrfod O;; dk |ksrd gS] ewY; Qk;nk trykrk gS ftlesa ykHk lfEefyr gSA bu vkosnuksa ds vk/kkj ij ;kph }kjk vkns‘k 17-1-2008 dh oS/krk ij iz‘u fd;k x;k gSA ¼iSjk 11½
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % vkf{kIr vkns‘k fnukad 17-1-2008 ls izdV gS fd vfxze midj dh jde fd, x, dk;Z ds vuqekfur ewY; ds vk/kkj ij ifjdyfr dh xbZA ‘‘kCn iz;ksx ^^fd, x, dk;Z dk vuqekfur ewY;** dk vFkZ 1996 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3 ds lkFk ifBr 1998 ds fu;e ds fu;e 3 ls fudyrk gSA blfy,] ;kph dh vksj ls fo}ku dkmUlsy dk fuosnu lgh ugha gS fd] lfUuekZ.k dk;Z ds laca/k esa fu;kstd }kjk mixr [kpZ ls i`Fkd O;; esa lfEefyr gSA ¼iSjk 7½
¼2½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; && ykxr && vFkZ gS ^^O;;**] dher && fdlh iz;kstuo‘k O;; dh xbZ] lanRr ;k izHkkfjr jkf‘k ;k lerqY;A CySDl ykW fMD‘kujh] 5ok¡ laLdj.k osLV voyafcrA
¼iSjk 5½
¼3½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; && ^^ewY;** && euq";ksa dh vko‘;drkvksa ;k okaNkvksa dks] izR;{kr% ;k vizR;{kr%] iwjk djus esa inkFkZ dh mi;ksfxrk] vFkZ‘kkfL=;ksa }kjk ^^mi;ksx ewY;** dgk x;k gS && ;k vU; inkFkZ dz; djus dh ‘kfDr esa lfEefyr ewY;] ^^fofue; ewY;**A CySDl ykW fMD"kujh] 5ok¡ laLdj.k osLV voyaforA
¼iSjk 5½
1. Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 17.1.2008, whereby 1 % welfare cess has been deducted at source on the approximate value of work done up to 17.1.2008 excluding the measuring-up additions and alteration. Assail is on the ground that under section 3 of the Building and other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1996) levy and collection of cess is on the cost of construction incurred by an employer and not on the approximate value of work done. It is urged that value and cost being the different percepts, operates in different field. Whereas the cost of construction, it is urged, denotes the actual expenditure, the value connotes the benefit which includes the profit. It is on the basis of these submissions the petitioner questions the validity of the order dated 17.1.2008.
2. The respondents on their part while supporting the action of deducting 1 % welfare cess at source from the running bill of the petitioner states that the same is strictly in accordance with the provisions contained under the Act of 1996 and the Rules made thereunder. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that after construing the entire provisions as contained under sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act of 1996 read with rule 3 of Rules 1998, the action cannot be found fault with. It is accordingly urged that the petition being devoid of substance is liable to be dismissed.
3. Considered the rival submissions put-forth by respective counsel.
4. Before embarking upon the rival contentions, worth it will be to note the relevant provisions of the Act of 1996 which was enacted to provide for the levy and collection of a cess on the cost of construction incurred by employers with a view to augmenting the resources of the Building and other Construction Workers' Welfare Boards constituted under the Building and other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996. Section 3 thereof stipulates:
"3. Levy and collection of cess. -- (1) There shall be levied and collected a cess for the purposes of the Building and other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996, at such rate not exceeding two per cent. But not less than one per cent of the cost of construction incurred by an employer, as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time specify.
(2) The cess levied under sub-section (1) shall be collected from every employer in such manner and at such time, including deduction at source in relation to a building or other construction work of a Government or of a public sector undertaking or advance collection through a local authority where an approval of such building or other construction work by such local authority is required, as may be prescribed.
(3) The proceeds of the cess collected under sub-section (2) shall be paid by the local authority or the State Government collecting the cess to the Board after deducting the cost of collection of such cess not exceeding one per cent, of the amount collected.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or subsection (2), the cess leviable under this Act including payment of such cess in advance may, subject to final assessment to be made, be collected at a uniform rate or rates as may be prescribed on the basis of the quantum of the building or other construction work involved."
Section 4 makes a provision for furnishing of returns in the following terms :
"4. Furnishing of returns. -- (1) Every employer shall furnish such return to such officer or authority, in such manner and at such time as may be prescribed.
(2) If any person carrying on the building or other construction work, liable to pay the cess under section 3, fails to furnish any return under sub-section (1), the officer or the authority shall give a notice requiring such person to furnish such return before such date as may be specifi
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
