J U D G M E N T

The short issue arising for consideration in this writ petition is with regard to the liability of the petitioner, who constructed a residential building during the years 2000–01, for the Construction Workers Welfare Cess.

2. I have heard Sri.C. Harikumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader, and Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Board.

3. The impugned demand has been raised against the petitioner, as evidenced by Exts. P1 and P2, by applying the rate that was prevalent at the relevant point of time (2001). The contention raised by the petitioner is that, since the building in question was constructed in the year 2000, only the rate prevalent during the year 2000 is liable to be applied. The rate applicable during the year 2000 is evident from Ext. R1(e). The fact that the building in question was constructed in the year 2000 is also clear from a perusal of Ext. P6 certificate issued by the local authority.

4. When that be so, I am of the opinion that the petitioner's liability can only be with reference to the rate of cess that was applicable during the year 2000.

In such circumst