AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—This petition seeks quashing of demand of labour cess under the provisions of the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996 (Cess Act) and notice dated 16.11.2010, Annexure P-7, issued by the Labour Department, requiring the Petitioner to furnish relevant documents for assessment of the amount of cess. A direction has also been sought for grant of occupation certificate for the building constructed by the Petitioner.
Case of the Petitioners is that they constructed a housing project as per the sanctioned plan and applied for grant of occupation certificate to the Director, Town and Country C.W.P. No. 23183 of 2010 Planning under Rule 47 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Rules, 1965. In response to the said application, the Director, Town and Country Planning vide letter dated 21.10.2010, inter-alia, asked the Petitioner to deposit labour cess. According to the Petitioners, the amount of cess had not been assessed and the amount due according to the assessment of the Petitioner had already been deposited. In any case, the Director, Town and Country Planning could not go into the question of payment of cess under the Cess Act. The validity of cess was under challenge before the Hon''ble Supreme Court.
We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners.
It is not disputed that proceedings for assessment of cess are pending consideration before the concerned authority as per notice Annexure P-7, which is sought to be quashed by the Petitioner. Validity of the Act and applicability to owners and contractors has been upheld by this Court vide order dated 13.5.2010 inC.W.P. No. 6230 of 2008 M/s New India Construction Company and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors and order dated 21.5.2010 in C.W.P. No. 6102 of 2008 Adani Agri Logistics Limited and Anr. v. The State of Haryana and Ors.. Thus, there is no ground to quash the said notice. Whether or not the Petitioners have made the requisite payment or complied with other requirements for issuance of occupation certificate, cannot be ascertained from the records C.W.P. No. 23183 of 2010 attached with the petition. There is also no document to show that the Petitioners have approached the Director, Town and Country Planning with their version of such payment or of their being not liable to pay the amount mentioned in letter dated 21.10.2010. Without complying with the said letter or showing that the Petitioners are not liable to comply with the same, direction for grant of occupation certificate sought by the Petitioners cannot be granted. Moreover, the Petitioners must respond to the letter with appropriate objections before raising grievance about the same in this Court.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as premature, without prejudice to Petitioners taking appropriate remedy in accordance with law.