UTTAR PRADESH POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. versus CG POWER AND INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED AND ANR.

Citation: [2021] 5 S.C.R. 37 · Decided: 12-05-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
37
   [2021] 5 S.C.R. 37
37
UTTAR PRADESH POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR.
v.
CG POWER AND INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED
AND ANR.
(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8630 of 2020)
MAY 12, 2021
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Act,
1996: s. 3(1), (2) – Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare
Cess Rules, 1998 – rr. 3 and 4 (1)-(4) – Building and Other
Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Condition
of Service) Act, 1996 – s. 2 (1)(d), (g) and (i) – Levy of cess on cost
of construction incurred by builders – Respondent no. 1-contractor
entered into an agreement with UPPTCL for construction of 765/
400 KV Substations, split into four contracts – Dispute between
parties – Issuance of letters by UPPTCL directing respondent no.1
to remit Labour Cess computed at 1% of the contract – UPPTCL
demanded cess on the supply Contract, on the basis of report of the
CAG – Writ petition by respondent no. 1 – High Court allowed the
petition, setting aside the letters – Interference with – Held: Not
called for – Cess under the Cess Act read with BOCW Act is leviable
in respect of building and other construction works – Scheme of
BOCW Act excludes supply contract from its ambit – Action of
UPPTCL in forcibly extracting building cess from respondent no.1
in respect of the first contract, solely on the basis of the CAG report,
is in excess of power conferred on UPPTCL, when there was
admittedly no assessment or levy of cess under the Cess Act –
UPPTCL has no power and authority and or jurisdiction to realize
labour cess under the Cess Act in respect of the first contract by
withholding dues in respect of other contracts and/or invoking a
performance guarantee – Furthermore, the Cess Act and/or statutory
rules framed thereunder prescribe the mode and manner of recovery
of outstanding cess under the Cess Act – UPPTCL could not have
taken recourse to the methods adopted by it – Thus, the
communications rightly set aside.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
38
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 5 S.C.R.
Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Act,
1996: Elucidation of.
Constitution of India: Art. 226 – Contractual matters – Scope
of interference by High Court – Held: Availability of an alternative
remedy does not prohibit the High Court from entertaining a writ
petition in an appropriate case – Relief u/Art.226 may be granted
in a case arising out of contract – However, the writ jurisdiction u/
Art.226 being discretionary, the High Courts usually refrain from
entertaining a writ petition which involves adjudication of disputed
questions of fact which may require analysis of evidence of witnesses
– Monetary relief can also be granted in a writ petition.
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court
HELD: 1. In the instant case, the action of UPPTCL in
forcibly extracting building cess from the Respondent No.1 in
respect of the first contract, solely on the basis of the CAG report,
is in excess of power conferred on UPPTCL by law or in terms of
the contract. In other words, UPPTCL has no power and authority
and or jurisdiction to realize labour cess under the Building and
Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1996 in respect
of the first contract by withholding dues in respect of other
contracts and/or invoking a performance guarantee. There is no
legal infirmity in the finding of the High Court that UPPTCL acted
in excess of power by its acts impugned, when there was
admittedly no assessment or levy of cess under the Cess Act.
Even otherwise, the Cess Act and/or statutory rules framed
thereunder prescribe the mode and manner of recovery of
outstanding cess under the Cess Act. It is well settled that when
statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it is to
be done in that manner alone. UPPTCL could not have taken
recourse to the methods adopted by it. The impugned
communications have rightly been set aside. The judgment and
order of the High Court impugned does not call for inference
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. [Paras 70-72]
[86-D-G]
2.1 By the impugned order dated 24th February 2020, the
High Court set aside the letters dated 2nd September, 2016 and
29th December, 2018 sent by the Petitioner to the Respondent
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
39
demanding 
outstanding 
labour 
cess 
amounting 
to
Rs.2,60,68,814/- computed at the rate of 1% of the contract value.
The High Court accepted the submission of the Respondent No

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.