w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M.L. Anidharan, Secretary, Narayana Health Care Society, Kollam v/s Union of India Represented By The Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Welfare Department, New Delhi & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- M R HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24232UR2006PTC031319

Company & Directors' Information:- HEALTH CARE (INDIA) LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24231TN1988PLC016493

Company & Directors' Information:- A. S. INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100MP2009PLC022300

Company & Directors' Information:- J D HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15497WB2004PTC097974

Company & Directors' Information:- T. C. HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899UP1985PTC037371

Company & Directors' Information:- Y K M HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85100AP2007PTC056256

Company & Directors' Information:- S V S HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110UR1991PTC013184

Company & Directors' Information:- S M INDIA LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U26942ML1998PLC005541

Company & Directors' Information:- A R K HEALTH CARE PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U24299CH1997PTC020705

Company & Directors' Information:- R S K HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85100DL1992PTC050311

Company & Directors' Information:- R. N. K. HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900WB2013PTC195733

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TN1919PTC000911

Company & Directors' Information:- N E HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85120AS2003PTC007118

Company & Directors' Information:- K R HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110TZ2000PTC009327

Company & Directors' Information:- S S HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1987PTC030080

Company & Directors' Information:- S P HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24232WB2003PTC097319

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND A HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U33112DL2002PTC114051

Company & Directors' Information:- K & K HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC059782

Company & Directors' Information:- N R P HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85300BR2021PTC052209

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1941PTC003461

Company & Directors' Information:- A M C HEALTH CARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110TN2008PTC066650

Company & Directors' Information:- O. L. HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85300WB2017PTC220471

Company & Directors' Information:- S V HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110DL2006PTC145004

Company & Directors' Information:- N & N HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110OR2021PTC036397

Company & Directors' Information:- J. S. HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51397HR2008PTC037595

Company & Directors' Information:- B M R HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2009PTC192000

Company & Directors' Information:- T D HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85195WB2009PTC135107

Company & Directors' Information:- D P HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24231DL2003PTC120730

Company & Directors' Information:- M G HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85195MH2001PTC130460

Company & Directors' Information:- N V HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2016PTC280079

Company & Directors' Information:- R P M HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U24233UP2007PTC034056

Company & Directors' Information:- H V HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24239DL2003PTC121596

Company & Directors' Information:- R M HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC050925

Company & Directors' Information:- S & G HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51397MP2008PTC020393

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND G HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85199KL2003PTC016352

Company & Directors' Information:- P U R V HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85100UP2020PTC138218

Company & Directors' Information:- V A HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85195DL2006PTC153744

    WP(C). No. 23103 of 2010 (K)

    Decided On, 21 January 2015

    At, High Court of Kerala

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN

    For the Petitioner: Shabu Sreedharan, Advocate. For the Respondent: T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, Asst.S.G of India, V.K. Rafeeq, Government Pleader, P. Parameswaran Nair, ASG of India, N. Nagaresh, ASG.



Judgment Text

1. The petitioner challenges levy of cess under the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996. Admittedly the petitioner had constructed a building which would be liable to cess under the Act. Going by the averments in the writ petition itself, the construction of the building was completed over a period of 4 years.

2. On 07.02.2006, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P1 demand; being the cess assessed on the cost of construction which had been completed till that date. The same is permissible as per per Rule 4 of the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Rules, 1998, which permits levy under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act within 30 days of completion of the construction project or within 30 days of the date on which the assessment of the cess payable is finalised. Sub section (2) permits levy in each year, when the duration of the project or construction work exceeds one year. The petitioner paid the amounts as demanded in Ext.P1 which is evidenced as per Ext.P2.

3. When the construction of the building was completed, the petitioner was issued with notice on 10.02.2010 produced as Ext.P3 demanding an amount of Rs.7,00,112/-, assessing the total cost of construction to be Rs.8,45,11,154/-. The petitioner has not filed any objection to Ext.P3. Ext.P4 final assessment order was passed on 24.05.2010, against which alternate remedies are provided under the Act and Rules. The petitioner obviously has chosen to approach this Court with a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, on the ground that the levy made is exorbitant, in so far as the cess levied is for the benefit of the construction workers, while the amount by which such levy made includes the entire construction work. The petitioner's essential contention is that the cost of material would have absolutely no nexus with the work put in, by the construction workers and hence the same has to be excluded. Immediately it is to be noticed that the contention on the face of it is not sustainable. In a construction work, the materials used definitely has a bearing on the work carried out.

4. The Act and the Rules aforesaid have been enacted to provide for relief to the workers engaged in the un-organised sector of construction. The Act definitely is a welfare measure which the State has initiated; for which the activity, which the workers whose interests are sought to be protected are involved in, is intended to be taxed. The activity in which the workers who are benefited by the enactment, are engaged in, is the construction work carried on. The enduring benefit of such construction enures to the person who carries on the same as the owner.

5. The measure for imposing such levy has been determined as the construction cost incurred and the levy has been specified to be on the 'employer', who is defined under the Building and Construction Workers Regulation of Employment and Condition of Services Act, 1996. The definitions in that Act, have been imported to the Cess Act by sub-section (b) of Section 2. Though the cess has been levied and is intended to be collected for the purpose of the welfare of those persons employed in construction, there cannot be any perceptive differentiation of the wages paid to the construction workers and the cost of construction otherwise incurred by an owner. The State is competent to decide the measure on which such levy has to be made.

6. The distinction between the levy of tax and the measure of tax prescribed has been highlighted by the Supreme Court and was reiterated in Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. [(1984) 1 SCC 467] by a three Judge Bench, which stood reaffirmed in State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. [(2004) 10 SCC 201] by a Constitution Bench. The question raised therein was as to whether the wholesale price actually charged by the manufacturer could be taken as the measure of tax on which the levy is made. The said contention was raised on the multiple grounds that excise is a tax on manufacture or production and uniformity of incidence being a basic characteristic of the levy of excise, the exclusion of post-manufacturing expenses and post-manufacturing profits is a necessary corollary to achieve the said uniformity. It was urged that the conceptual value is only the cost of manufacture and the wholesale price charged by the manufacturer would not be a determining factor. Referring to a number of earlier decisions of the Federal Court, the Privy Council and the Supreme Court itself, it was held so:

'It is apparent, therefore, that when enacting a measure to serve as a standard for assessing the levy the Legislature need not contour it along lines which spell out the character of the levy itself. Viewed from this standpoint, it is not possible to accept the contention that because the levy of excise is a levy on goods manufactured or produced the value of an excisable article must be limited to the manufacturing cost plus the manufacturing profit. We are of opinion that a broader based standard of reference may be adopted for the purpose of determining the measure of the levy. Any standard which maintains a nexus with the essential character of the levy can be regarded as a valid basis for assessing the measure of the levy. In our opinion, the origi

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

nal Section 4 and the new Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act satisfy this test'. 7. It was clearly held that the levy of tax is defined by its nature and the measure of tax has to be assessed by its own standard. The standard adopted as the measure of the levy though would indicate the nature of the tax, it was found that, it does not necessarily determine the nature as such. This Court, hence, does not find any infirmity in the prescription of the measure of the levy as per the Cess Act. The writ petition, hence, would stand dismissed. No costs.
O R