COMMON ORDER:

1. As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is inter-related, all these writ petitions are taken up together and are disposed of through this common order. W.P.No.13555 of 2022 is taken as a leading case.

2. W.P.No.13555 of 2022 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:

“To issue writ of mandamus (A) Declare the actions of the Respondents No 1 to 3 in issuing the impugned letter/email dated 09.12.2021 as illegal arbitrary unconstitutional without any jurisdiction dehors the provisions of Cess Act and BOCW Act and consequently set aside the same (B) Declare the actions of the Respondents in deducting Rs.2,72,92,447/- from the invoices raised by the Petitioner in the subject contracts in the form of labour cess as illegal arbitrary unconstitutional without any jurisdiction and dehors the provisions of Cess Act and Building Workers Act and consequently direct the Respondents Nos.1 to 3 to forthwith refund Rs.2,72,92,447/- along with interest to the petitioner and (C) Pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and pass.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, interalia engaged in the business of providing engineering, procurement and construction services to steel manufacturers across India and South-East Asia region. Respondent No.1/RINL executed a contract with the petitioner and other two consortium members for the purpose of imported supply and services and indigenous supply and services for setting up of forged rail wheel manufacturing plant at Lalganj, Raebareli under forged wheel plant project vide Contract No.VSP/CONT/FWP/MAIN/M-1421/201-17 dated 18.04.2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Umbrella Contract’), but, Respondent No.1 entered into individual agreements separately with each consortium member, including the petitioner in relation to the indigenous supply and services in relation to the work.

4. He submits that, out of the four agreements entered between the petitioner and the respondents, only one agreement i.e third agreement is in relation to civil engineering works including all related supplies Agreement dated 18.04.2016 and the other three agreements are supply agreements relating to building work contract nor construction works of any structure.

5. He submits that, issuing Circular for collection Labour Cess is contrary to the provisions of the Building and other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1996 (for short ‘Cess Act’) which is leviable only in respect of building and other construction works and for no other works. Except third agreement, all the three other agreements are supply contracts/agreements only. Therefore, in view of the authoritative ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai, [AIR1999SC22], Respondent No.1 is not entitled to deduct the amount 2,72,92,47/- from the invoices raised by the petitioner towards Cess under the Cess Act in respect of the entire volume of contract on the guise of Comprehensive Agreement/Umbrella Agreement, ignoring the separate and individual agreements, as mentioned above.

6. He submits that, Respondent No.1 has no legal obligation and right to deduct the cess under the Cess Act, pertaining to the contracts where there was no involvement of building or other civil construction works as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Building and Other Constructions Works (Regulation of Employment and Condition of Service) Act, 1996.

7. He explains that, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for Respondents that, in similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court in batch of writ petitions upheld levying of cess under the provisions of the Cess Act, treating the entire project as a composite contract and awarded as one work. He further contends that it