UNIVERSITY OF JAMMU. Vs. M/S RAKESH CONSTRUCTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mrs. Aruna Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant in L.P. Appeal nos. 24 and 34 of 2016 and Mr. R. Koul, learned counsel for the appellant in L.P. Appeal no. 16/2016 as also Mr. Anuj Sawhney, learned counsel for the appellant in L.P. Appeal No. 22/2016.

(2.) These L.P. appeals are preferred against a common order made by the Writ Court in OWP Nos. 1140/2003 and 441/2004 dated 11.03.2016. LPAOW Nos. 24/2016 and 34/2016 have been preferred by the University and its officer, challenging the order of the Writ Court so far as directing the University to release the withheld amount in favour of the writ petitioners within a period of four weeks, while as LPAOW Nos. 16/2016 and 22/2016 have been preferred by the writ petitioners against not ordering interest on the withheld amount as the same has been disallowed by the Writ Court.

(3.) The case of the petitioners in both the writ petitions before the Writ Court was that their proprietary concerns were allotted different construction works without their being any stipulation for payment of sums on account of any service taxes, duties, levies chargeable from the contractor in NIT or contract agreement. The proprietary concerns executed various works duly allotted by the University authorities. Insofar as the contract works pertaining to writ petitioner in OWP No. 1140/2003, the same commenced on 06.01.2002 and was completed on 06.06.2003. When the final bills were raised by the writ petitioner the payments were not released/withheld by the University stating that in terms of State Government's circular dated 07.06.2003 the Drawing and Disbursing Officer has been directed to deduct the service tax from the contractors on the gross value of the works executed by them. Hence the amount was withheld on account of service tax. It was contended by the writ petitioner that the contract works having been already allotted and completed and final bills raised, there was no justification to withhold the balance amount. It was further contended by the writ petitioner that the University itself by communication dated 22.06.2002 admitted that service tax has not been charged from the contractor as no such condition was incorporated either in the Notice inviting tenders are in the contract agreements. The Writ Court taking note of the fact that payments have been released in full without withholding any amount on account of service tax on earlier contracts during the same period and University having admitted by communication dated 22.06.2002 that service tax was not being charged from the contractors for the contracts before 01.02.2002, allowed the writ petition with the directions as stated above against which the University and its Officer have preferred L.P. Appeal Nos. 24/2016 and 34/2016. The writ petitioners feeling aggrieved by not allowing them interest on the withheld amount preferred LP appeal Nos. 16/2016 and 22/2016.