In a recent judgement ,the Patna High Court (HC)while dismissing the petition, held that the Reimbursement of Seignorage Charge and Labour Cess on construction work done under NABARD has to challenge before the appropriate forum.
M/s Dhaneshwar Nath, the Petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to add GST, Seigniorage Charge and Labour Cess in the estimate and agreement in connection with the work of “Construction & Five Year Maintenance of Akauna Path to Yogapur Path in Punpun Block Under NABARD” as GST, Seigniorage Charge and Labour Cess were not included in the original estimate and Bill of Quantity.
Further urged to direct the respondents to refund/reimburse the deducted amount as Seignorage Charge and Labour Cess from R/A Bills of thePetitioner and GST for which the petitioner is liable to pay in connection with the aforesaid work.
It was stated that the action of the Respondents of non-refund/reimburse the GST, Seignorage Charge and Labour Cess from R/A Bills of the Petitioner is not only a breach of Contract but also violative of Fundamental Rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Chief Justice ParthaSarthy observed that the petitioner shall be content if a direction is issued to the authority concerned to consider and decide the representation which the petitioner shall be filing within a period of four weeks from today for redressal of the grievance(s).
The powers of the High Court under Article 226 are not strictly confined to the limits to which proceedings for prerogative writs are subject to English practice. Nevertheless, the well-recognised rule that no writ or order like a mandamus would issue when there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty applies in this country as well.
As a general rule the order will not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do so that he had the means of considering whether or not he should comply, and it must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce and that that demand was met by a refusal.’
The Court observed that there was no such demand or refusal. While dismissing the petition the court held that Petitioner shall approach the authority concernedfor redressal of the grievance.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
