AI Insights
The case involves multiple writ petitions filed by various construction companies against the Labour Commissioner and other authorities, challenging the levy of interest on delayed payment of cess under the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996. The petitioners argued that they had deposited the cess before the completion of the assessment and that the interest levy was arbitrary and illegal. The respondents contended that the interest was rightly levied as the cess was not paid within the due dates specified in the Act and Rules. The court consolidated the petitions and decided them based on the common legal issue of the applicability and interpretation of Section 8 of the Act concerning the timing of cess payment and the consequent interest liability.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799780 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Others
Pronouncement Date
21-08-2023
Assessment Year
misc
Judgement Text
" (1 of 17) [CW-11375/2022] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11375/2022 Grandiose Buildteck Private Limited, A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956, Having Its Registered Office At 602, Sixth Floor, Vaibhav Multiplex, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Anish Raj Sethi S/o Harish Chand Sethi, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Plot No. 53, Gandhi Path, Girnar Colony, 16-A, Vaishali Nagar Jaipur, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Labour Commissioner And Appellate Authority, Under The Building And Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996, Labour Department, Hansanpura B, Shanti Nagar, Civil Lines, Jaipur. 2. Cess Assessment Officer And Divisional Joint Labour Commissioner, Labour Department, Hansanpura B, Shanti Nagar, Civil Lines, Jaipur. Connected with D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 282/2023 Kanha Hotels and Spa Pvt. Ltd, J-5, Himmat Nagar, Near Gopalpura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) through its Authorised Signatory. ---Petitioner Versus Joint Divisional Labour Commissioner-cum-Assessing Officer, Office of Divisional Joint Labour Commissioner, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10537/2023 M/s Spytech Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Office-501, “Geetansh” Class of Pearl, K-48-49, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur through its Director Shri Vivek Jain. ---Petitioner Versus Joint Divisional Labour Commissioner-Cess-Assessing Officer, (2 of 17) [CW-11375/2022] Office of Divisional Joint Labour Commissioner, Shanti Nagar, Hasanpura, Jaipur ---Respondent D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13191/2020 M/s Shramik Awas Vikasak LLP, 526, fifth Floor, Park Centra Building Sector 30, Gurgaon 122001 through its Manager- Administration Mr. Shailendra Singh. ----Petitioner Versus Divisional Joint Labour Commissioner-Cum-Assessing Officer, Shanti Nagar, Hasanpura, Jaipur ---Respondent D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8150/2021 M/s Laxmi Builders and Developers, having its Registered Office at 47, Income Tax Colony Ist, Main Jagatpura Road, Jaipur, through its Partner, Shri Manish Bhatia ---Petitioner Versus Divisional Joint Labour Commissioner-Cum-Assessing Officer, Shanti Nagar, Hasanpura, Jaipur. ---Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9004/2022 Delhi World Public School, Chachiyawas, Sikar Road, Ajmer (Rajasthan) through its Vice-Chairman, Mr. Karan Singh Chauhan ---Petitioner Versus Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Assessing Officer, Office of Divisional Joint Labour Commissioner, Plot No. 4, Behind Sainik Vishram Grah, Todarmal Marg, Ajmer. ---Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3929/2021 M/s Cords Cable Industries Ltd, having its registered office at 94 Ist floor, Shambu Dayal Marg, Near Okhla Industrial Area Phase-III, Old Ishwar Nagar, New Delhi-110020, through its Senior Manager(Human Resource) ---Petitioner Versus Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum Assessing Officer, 11 (3 of 17) [CW-11375/2022] Roopwas Road, Alwar ---Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12073/2020 M/s Choudhary Kanaram Dhaka Memorial Sansthan, Plot No. 5-6, Pratap Nagar, Churu Road, Jhunjhunu through its Secretary Dr. Lal Chand Dhaka ---Petitioner Versus Labour Welfare Officer-Cum-Cess Assessing Officer, Near Income Tax Office Mandawa Mod, Jhunjhunu. ---Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7467/2020 Arun Vashishta, s/o Shri K.K. Vashishta Age-47 years R/o Plot No. 22, RFC Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. --Petitioner Versus 1. Labour Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority, Shram Bhawan, Shanti Nagar, Hasanpura, Jaipur. 2. Divisional Joint Labour Commissioner-cum-Assessing Officer, Shanti Nagar, Hasanpura, Jaipur --Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9574/2022 M/s Kshetrapal Hospital, Multispeciality and Research Centra, Sector-C Panchsheel Nagar, Ajmer, through its Vice President Mr. Alok Sharma. ---Petitioner Versus Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Assessing Officer, office of Divisional Joint Labour Commissioner, Plot No. 4, Behind Sainik VishramGrah, Todarmal Marg, Ajmer ---Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gunjan Pathak with Mr. Aditya Bohra Mr. Veyankatesh Garg For Respondent(s) : Dr. Ganesh Parihaar, AAG with Mr. Sameer Sharma Mr. C.L. Saini, AAG (in DBCWP No. 13191/20) Mr. M.Akbar Khan Dy.GC (in DBCWP No. 8150/21) (4 of 17) [CW-11375/2022] HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order Per Honb’le Sameer Jain:- Reserved on – 20/07/2023, 24/07/2023, 26/07/2023, 28/07/2023, 28/07/2023 & 04/08/2023 Pronounced on – 21/08/2023 1. Since identical question of law is involved in all these writ petitions, the same are being decided by way of this common order. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11375/2022 is taken as lead file to peruse the facts. 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 20.05.2022 passed by Respondent No.1 / Labour Commissioner & Appellate Authority, confirming the levy of interest of Rs. 65,83,237/- as imposed vide impugned assessment order dated 31.01.2022 under The Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1996”) and The Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1998”), the present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs: “a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or Writ of Mandamus or appropriate writ, direction or order setting aside the impugned order dated 20.05.2022 passed by Respondent No. 1. b. Quash the order dated 20.05.2022 passed by Respondent No. 1 confirming the levy of interest on Cess; c. Quash the assessment order dated 31.01.2022 to the extent of levy of interest of Rs. 65,83,237/- on delay on deposition of Cess, whereas the total cess amount has been deposited by the petitioner before filing of information under Form-I. (5 of 17) [CW-11375/2022] d. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the Case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 and is engaged in the business of Real Estate in Rajasthan. The petitioner-company is also registered under the Act of 1996 bearing registration No. BOCW/Cess/2014/193. It is submitted that the construction of the project in question was started in the year 2012-13 and completed in August 2018 and upon completion of the project, the petitioner-company provided the information to the Respondent No.2 as prescribed in Form-I on 12.01.2022 and applied for assessment of the Cess amount of the project in question. It is further submitted that Form-I duly contained the estimated cost of construction along-with the details of the challans deposited by the petitioner-company as Cess under the Act of 1996, being 1% of the estimated cost of construction. The Respondent No. 2 / Joint Labour Commissioner cum Cess Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as “AO”), vide order dated 31.01.2022, accepted the estimated cost of construction as Rs. 60,49,28,698/- and deposition of Cess of Rs. 60,49,287/- being 1% of the estimated cost of construction. However, at the same time, AO arbitrarily levied interest of Rs. 65,83,237/- under the Act of 1996. The said levy of interest was challenged by way of appeal before Respondent No. 1 / Labour Commissioner & Appellate Authority (hereinafter referred to as “Appellate Authority”), but the same was also mechanically dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.05.2022. (6 of 17) [CW-11375/2022] 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-company contends that the levy of interest, in the present case, was arbitrary and illegal and in support of this contention, learned counsel made the following submissions: 4.1. As per Section 8 of the Act of 1996, interest is leviable only when the assessee has failed to deposit the Cess assessed in the order within the due date mentioned in the assessment order as passed by the AO. In the present case, since the petitioner- company had duly deposited the cess before the completion of the assessment, the petitioner-company is not liable to pay any interest as there has been no delay whatsoever in the deposition of Cess. 4.2. As per subsection (4) of Section 3 of the Act of 1996, Cess is determined at the time of final assessment made by the AO and till that time any Cess paid by the assessee remains Cess paid in advance. When some levy remains paid in advance till its final assessment, non-payment of the same can by no stretch of imagination be considered as default or delayed payment liable for interest. 4.3. That as per settled position of law, rules of literal interpretation has to be applied in the case of taxing statutes. In the present case, though the Act of 1996 provides for payment of Cess within 30 days from the end of the year in case of continuing projects, however, it does not provide for levy of interest in case of such failure. If the intention of the law would have been to charge the interest in such cases also the law must have specifically provided for the same, which is not the case here. (7 of 17) [CW-11375/2022] Reliance in this regard has been placed on Apex Court judgments of Raghunath Rai Bareja and Ors. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors.: (2007) 2 SCC 230, J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. CTO: (1994) 4 SCC 276, V.V.S. Sugars vs. Government of A.P.: (1999) 4 SCC 192, Maruti Wire Industries (P) Ltd. vs. STO: (2001) 3 SCC 735, Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar & Company and Ors: (2018) 9 SCC 1 and B. Premanand and Ors. vs. Mohan Koikal and Ors.: (2011) 4 SCC 266 and judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Delta Paper Mills Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, Guntur: (1995) 77 ELT 544 (A.P). Section 8 of the Act of 1996, which is the only interest charging provision, provides for levy of interest only when the assessee fails to deposit due Cess within the time period mentioned in the assessment order. Apart from Section 8 of the Act of 1996, there is no provision for levy of interest on non-payment of Cess on yearly basis. 4.4. That as per Rule 7 of the Rules of 1998, the AO has exceeded his jurisdiction and levied interest under Section 8 of the Act of 1996 even when the petitioner-company has filed Form-I after due deposition of Cess. 4.5. That Section 14 of the Act of 1996 gives the power to make rules to the legislature for carrying out the provision of the Act of 1996. However, Section 14 of the Act of 1996 does not mention Section 8 of the Act of 1996, which indicates that the government did not have the power to make rules on Section 8 of the Act of 1996. (8 of 17) [CW-11375/2022] 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that Section 8 of the Act of 1996 read with Rule 4 of the Rules of 1996 makes it absolutely clear that petitioner-company has committed delay and has not deposited Cess payable on the amount incurred on construction every year and therefore the AO had rightly levied interest, which has been calculated as per provisions of Section 8 of the Act of 1996 read with Rule 4 of the Rules of 1996. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per Rule 4(2) of the Rules of 1998, where the duration of the project/construction work exceeds one year, the Cess shall be paid within thirty days of completion of one year from the date of commencement of work and every year thereafter at notified rates on the cost of construction incurred during the relevant period. In the case in hand, the majority of the Cess amount was deposited by the petitioner-company in January of 2022 whereas the construction was completed in the middle of year 2018 and therefore the AO had rightly levied interest on the delayed payment. Learned counsel for the respondents further contends that the provision of Section 8 of the Act of 1996 cannot be viewed in isolation and have to be read harmoniously with the Rules of 1998. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondent has also relied on Apex Court judgment of Securities and Exchange Board of India vs. National Stock Exchange Members Association and Ors.: AIR 2022 SC 5213. Learned counsel for the respondents have also emphasized that the petitioners have not challenged the constitutional validity of Rules of 1998. (9 of 17) [CW-11375/2022] 6. Heard the arguments advanced by both the sides, scanned the record of the writ petition and considered the judgments cited at Bar. 7. The limited issue which requires the consideration of this Court is with regard to the date on which the Cess becomes due for the purpose of determining the interest, if any, on delayed payment of such Cess. 8. The Act of 1996 has been enacted to provide for the levy and collection of cess on the cost of construction incurred by employers, with a view to augment the resources of the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Boards (hereinafter referred as “Welfare Board”), constituted under the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as “BOCW Act”). A perusal of the various provisions of the BOCW Act makes it amply clear that the said Act has been enacted for the welfare of building and other construction workers and to make adequate provisions for their safety, health and financial security. 9. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act of 1996 and the Rules of 1998. Sections 3, 5 and 8 of the Act of 1996 are reproduced as under: “Section 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. (10 of 17) [CW-11375/2022] (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 percent, of the amount collected. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (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 5 - Assessment of cess (1)The officer or authority to whom or to which the return has been furnished under section 4 shall after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he or it thinks fit and after satisfying himself or itself that the particulars stated in the return are correct, by order, assess the amount of cess payable by the employer. (2) If the return has not been furnished to the officer or authority under sub-section (2) of section 4, he or it shall, after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he or it thinks fit, by order, assess the amount of cess payable by the employer. (3) An order of assessment made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall specify the date within which the cess shall be paid by the employer. Section 8 - Interest payable on delay in payment of cess If any employer fails to pay any amount of cess payable under section 3 within the time specified in the order of assessment, such employer shall be liable to pay interest on the amount to be paid at the rate of two per cent, for every month or part of a month comprised in the period from the date on which such payment is due till such amount is actually paid.” Rules 4 and 6 of the Rules of 1998 are reproduced as under: “Rule 4 - Time and manner of collection (11 of 17) [CW-11375/2022] (1) The cess levied under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act shall be paid by an employer, within thirty days of completion of the construction project or within thirty days of the date on which assessment of cess payable is finalised, whichever is earlier, to the cess Collector. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-rule (1), where the duration of the project or construction work exceeds one year, cess shall be paid within thirty days of completion of one year from the date of commencement of work and every year thereafter at the notified rates on the cost of construction incurred during the relevant period. (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-rule (1) and sub- rule (2), where the levy of cess pertains to building and other construction work of a Government or of a Public Sector Undertaking, such Government or the Public Sector Undertaking shall deduct or cause to be deducted the cess payable at the notified rates from the bills paid for such works. (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-rule (1) and sub- rule (2), where the approval of a construction work by a local authority is required, every application for such approval shall be accompanied by a crossed demand draft in favour of the Board and payable at the station at which the Board is located for an amount of cess payable at the notified rates on the estimated cost of construction: Provided that if the duration of the project is likely to exceed one year, the demand draft may be for the amount of cess payable on cost of construction estimated to be incurred during one year from the date of commencement and further payment of cess due shall be made as per the provisions of sub-rule (2). (5) An employer may pay in advance an amount of cess calculated on the basis of the estimated cost of construction along with the notice of commencement of work under Section 46 of the Main Act by a crossed demand draft in favour of the Board and Payable at the station at which the Board is located: Provided that if the duration of the project is likely to exceed one year, the demand draft may be for the amount of cess payable on cost of construction estimated to be incurred during one year from the date of such commencement and further payment of cess due shall be made as per the provisions of sub-rule (2). (6) Advance cess paid under sub-rules (3), (4) and (5), shall be adjusted in the final assessment made by the Assessing Officer. Rule 6 - Information to be furnished by the employer (12 of 17) [CW-11375/2022] (1) Every employer, within thirty days of commencement of his work of payment of cess, as the case may be, furnish to the Assessing Officer, information in Form I. (2) Any change or modification in the information furnished under sub-rule (1) shall be communicated to the Assessing Officer immediately but not later than thirty days from the date of affecting the modification or change.” 10. It is noted that Section 3(1) of the Act of 1996, which is the charging section, provides for the levy and collection of Cess for the purposes of the BOCW Act, at such rate not exceeding two per cent, but not less than one per cent, of the cost of construction incurred by an employer. Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act of 1996, contains a non-obstante clause which makes it clear that, notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) or (2), the Cess leviable under the Act of 1996, 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. As per Section 5 of the Act of 1996, inquiry can be conducted by AO and assessment can be made as per material available on record and presented by employer/assessee. Such order of assessment would also contain the due date by which the employer/assessee would be required to pay the amount of Cess due. Section 8 of the Act of 1996 provides for levy of interest on any amount of cess payable under Section 3, within the time specified in the order of assessment, from the date on which such payment is due till such amount is actually paid. Therefore, Section 8 of the Act of 1996 is triggered by Section 3 of the Act of 1996. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1998 (13 of 17) [CW-11375/2022] provides for time and manner of collection of Cess and specifies the same to be within thirty days of completion of construction project or within thirty days of date of finalization of assessment, whichever is earlier. It is also required to be noted that the validity of the Rules of 1998 is not challenged. 11. On a co-joint reading of the above, the following important points emerge: (i) Liability to pay interest arises out of Section 8 of the Act of 1996, which is triggered by Section 3 of the Act of 1996; (ii) For quantification of interest, the relevant period will be from the date on which such payment is due till the time such amount is actually paid; (iii) Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act of 1996 provides for the employer/assessee to pay the Cess in advance also; (iv) Section 8 of the Act of 1996 provides for simple interest @2% per month from the date on which payment is due till such time when the amount is actually paid; (v) Rule 4 of the Rules of 1998, which prescribes the time and manner in which Cess levied under Section 3 of the Act of 1996 is to be paid, envisages two situations. One in which the construction is completed within one year and another in which construction would take more than one year. In the first scenario, the amount of Cess has to be paid within thirty days of completion of construction or within thirty days of assessment order, whichever is earlier. In the second scenario, that is when construction process takes more than one year, the amount of Cess for that particular year has to be paid within thirty days of (14 of 17) [CW-11375/2022] completion of one year from the date of commencement of work and every year thereafter. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1998, in unambiguous terms, provides the due date of payment of cess. This provision is absolutely clear and it casts an obligation on the assessee to deposit the cess within thirty days of completion of one year of construction. (vi) Rule 6 of the of the Rules of 1998 requires the assessee/employer to furnish information in the prescribed Form-I within thirty days of commencement of work. 12. In the instant case, the petitioner-company finished the construction work, which began in 2012, in the year 2018. However, the petitioner-company did not furnish the returns on time as required under Section 4 of the Act of 1996 read with Rule 6 of the Rules of 1998 and neither did the petitioner-company pay the due amount of cess in time, as required under Section 3 of the Act of 1996 read with Rule 4 of the Rules of 1998. The petitioner- company only furnished the Form-I and the amount of Cess in January of 2022, i.e. after a delay of about three and a half years as against the statutory requirement of thirty days. There was a statutory obligation on petitioner-company to furnish the returns (Form-I) within thirty days of commencement of construction and to pay the amount of due cess for the relevant year within thirty days after completion of the relevant year. Since the petitioner- company failed to abide by the statutory obligations, it cannot be said that there was no delay in payment of cess. And once the delay is established, the provision of Section 8 of the Act of 1996 is triggered. (15 of 17) [CW-11375/2022] 13. As already discussed above, the BOCW Act and the Act of 1996 along with the rules framed therein were enacted with a specific purpose of welfare of building and other construction workers and to make adequate provisions for their safety, health and financial security. These statutes are thus having a beneficial purpose and have to be interpreted in a manner to give full effect to objects contained therein. 14. It is well settled that a statute should be construed in a way so as to not render the provisions inoperable. In our considered view, the interest was rightly levied under Section 8 (Interest payable on delay in payment of cess) of the Act of 1996 as liability to pay interest arises when the same ‘is due’ in terms of Sections 3 and 8 of the Act of 1996 read with Rule 4 of the Rules of 1998. The contention of the petitioner-company that no interest can be levied prior to order of assessment cannot be accepted because that would tantamount to enabling the petitioner/assessee to by-pass the mandate of law as specified in Rules 4 and 6 of the Rules of 1998. The contention of the petitioner-company with regard to exclusive applicability of strict/literal rule of interpretation is also untenable in the instant case and if such a contention is accepted, it would, in essence, render Section 8 of the Act of 1996 wholly ineffective and inoperable. Even in the Apex Court judgments of Raghunath Rai Bareja (supra) and B. Premanand (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner-company, the Apex Court held that purposive and harmonious rule of interpretation may be adopted, in the facts and circumstances of the case, if the plain (16 of 17) [CW-11375/2022] language would lead to an absurdity or would lead to an outcome which would defeat the purpose of the law, as is the case here. 15. It has also been the contention of the petitioner- company that Section 8 of the Act of 1996 is the charging section and the interest herein is in form of a penalty. Such a contention is against the settled position of law and the definition of interest. Interest is always consequential to the levy of tax/duty/cess, and is compensatory in nature and not punitive. It is intended to balance the equities between the government and taxpayer and serves as compensation for the loss suffered by the government due to delay in payment of tax/duty/cess. In the present case, we are concerned with the levy of interest for delayed payment of cess. The said interest is compensatory in nature in the sense that when the assessee pays tax after it becomes due, the presumption is that the government has lost the revenue during the interregnum period (the date when the tax became due and the date on which the tax is paid). The assessee enjoys that amount during the said period. It is in this sense that the interest is compensatory in nature and in order to recover the lost revenue, the interest, as prescribed, was rightly levied. Reliance in this regard can be placed on catena of Hon’ble Apex Court judgments, including Pratibha Processors v. Union of India: (1996) 11 SCC 101, Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Agricultural ITO: (2001) 1 SCC 278, Union of India vs. Tata Chemicals: (2014) 6 SCC 335, Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala: (2021) 6 SCC 150, Lachmandas Mathuradas v. CIT: (2002) 254 ITR 799, and Indodan (17 of 17) [CW-11375/2022] Industries Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 2352 -2358 of 2007; decided on 20.10.2009). 16. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petitions deserves to be dismissed as interest was rightly levied on belated payment of Cess. 16. Accordingly, present writ petitions are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ ANIL SHARMA /40 "
Other Referred Cases
Raghunath Rai Bareja and Ors. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors.: (2007) 2 SCC 230, J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. CTO: (1994) 4 SCC 276, V.V.S. Sugars vs. Government of A.P.: (1999) 4 SCC 192, Maruti Wire Industries (P) Ltd. vs. STO: (2001) 3 SCC 735, Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar & Company and Ors: (2018) 9 SCC 1, B. Premanand and Ors. vs. Mohan Koikal and Ors.: (2011) 4 SCC 266, Delta Paper Mills Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, Guntur: (1995) 77 ELT 544 (A.P), Securities and Exchange Board of India vs. National Stock Exchange Members Association and Ors.: AIR 2022 SC 5213, Pratibha Processors v. Union of India: (1996) 11 SCC 101, Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Agricultural ITO: (2001) 1 SCC 278, Union of India vs. Tata Chemicals: (2014) 6 SCC 335, Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala: (2021) 6 SCC 150, Lachmandas Mathuradas v. CIT: (2002) 254 ITR 799, Indodan Industries Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 2352 -2358 of 2007; decided on 20.10.2009)
Laws Referred To
The Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996, The Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Rules, 1998
1:1 Consultation on Startup Fundraising
₹5000
1:1 Consultation on Tax Litigation
₹0
Tax Holiday Secrets for Startups
₹0
Convertible Note Agreement
Mehul₹5000
Memorandum Amendment Resolution
₹0
Residency Rules: Income Tax Act, 1961 vs Income Tax Bill, 2025 — A Subtle Yet Significant Shift!
Team Counselvise - February 18, 2026
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026
Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT): Comprehensive Overview and Key Changes under Finance Bill, 2026
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026