9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under Clause 70.8. So was the case with the WCT. On coming to know that serious irregularities in this regard were taking place, the Government issued memo, dated 28.03.2009, directing that wherever the benefit of escalation of seigniorage fee or WCT was extended more than once, recoveries must be effected. It is in this context that the respondents withheld the amount. The petitioner does not dispute that the benefit of escalation in the seigniorage fee and WCT was extended to it in a different form and at the same time, the benefit was claimed under clause 70.8. In case, the petitioner disputes the correctness of the memo, dated 28.03.2009 or it is of the view that it did not avail the double benefit, it can certainly institute proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agreeing to pay a sum of Rs.13.25 crores in full and final settlement of the claims. The petitioner states that as against Rs.13.25 crores, the respondents paid a sum of Rs.11,30,20,975/- but did not pay the balance of Rs.1,49,67,045/-. Notices were exchanged. The 1st respondent informed the petitioner that the unpaid amount represents the deduction under various heads, including advance income tax, VAT, education cess, and the recoveries in pursuance of the memo, dated 28.03.2009. Not satisfied with that, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this writ petition. The principal ground urged by the petitioner is that the respondents are bound by the 'principle of estoppel' and there is absolutely no justification for them in not p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount. Learned Additional Advocate General on the other hand submits that the G.O. has been implemented in its entirety and deduction of amounts covered by the relevant provisions of law cannot be said to be without any basis. He submits that the major component viz., Rs.1,00,39,766/- is referable to memo, dated 28.03.2009, which was issued subsequent to the award. He contends that the petitioner derived double benefit in the form of the escalation of seigniorage fee and Work Contract Tax (WTC) and the amount paid in excess was directed to be recovered through memo, dated 28.03.2009. As observed earlier, the petitioner is a Government of India undertaking. Though it is carrying out commercial or construction activities, it is suppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scalation of seigniorage fee and WCT. The agreement between the petitioner and the respondents provides for the revision of the bills or the amounts, in case there is revision of the tax regime. The petitioner made claims for enhancement of the bills on account of seigniorage fee and WCT. The scrutiny however has revealed that the benefit was availed at two stages; the first is in the form of cost of material and the second is under Clause 70.8. So was the case with the WCT. On coming to know that serious irregularities in this regard were taking place, the Government issued memo, dated 28.03.2009, directing that wherever the benefit of escalation of seigniorage fee or WCT was extended more than once, recoveries must be effected. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
