TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 841
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e facts of W.P.(C) 6543/2020 are being noted. 3. Brief facts relevant for deciding the present writ petitions are set out below: i. The petitioner is engaged in the business of solid waste management, including collection, transport, processing and disposal of municipal waste. ii. On 31st January, 2005, Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('MCD') entered into a Concession Agreement with the petitioner for collection, segregation, transportation and disposal of municipal solid waste in Central, South, Shahdara and City Zone of MCD. Through this agreement, the petitioner was entitled to participate in the tenders of MCD for the waste management services. iii. In February, 2012, MCD invited quotations for hiring LMVs/Auto Tippers ('LMVs') with driver and labour for lifting Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)/Malba/Drain Silt and their dumping at designated landfill sites. iv. The last date of submission of technical bids was 23rd February, 2012, which was extended to 27th February, 2012. v. After various rounds of negotiations, the petitioner quoted the price at Rs. 1,934/- per day. Subsequently, the respondent issued work orders in favour of the pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re contrary to law. In view of Notification No. 12/2012 dated 17th March, 2012 and Notification No.25/2012-Service Tax dated 20th June, 2012, the services rendered by the petitioner in relation to solid waste management were exempt from payment of service tax. It is further contended that deductions towards labour cess are contrary to Section 3 of the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, a preliminary objection has been taken with regard to maintainability of the present writ petitions. It is stated that the present writ petitions seek enforcement of contractual obligations and recovery of monetary claims and are therefore not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further stated that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of filing a civil suit. 6. The respondent also contends that the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation, delay and laches. 7. On merits, the respondent contends that prior to issuance of the tender, a justification of rates was prepared by MCD wherein the base rate was worked out at Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 7th August, 2024. 12. On the issue of limitation, Mr. Agarwal submits that the amounts deducted by the respondent formed part of a running account and that the cause of action accrued only upon final settlement of accounts and the final payment under the contract. Reliance is placed upon Bharath Skins Corporation v. Taneja Skins Company Pvt. Ltd. 2011 SCC OnLine Del 5523 and Veena Jain v. Sunil Sood 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3834. 13. On maintainability, reliance is placed on ABL International Ltd. & Anr v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors (2004) 3 SCC 553, to contend that a writ petition is maintainable even in contractual matters where the State or its instrumentality has acted in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. 14. Per contra, Mr. Sunil Goel, counsel for the respondent submits that the present writ petitions are not maintainable as the same have been filed solely for recovery of contractual dues and the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner was to institute a civil suit for recovery. Reliance is placed on Punjab National Bank & Ors v. Atmanand Singh & Ors (2020) 6 SCC 256. 15. It is submitted that the judgment in Metro Wast....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....writ petition was filed by the petitioner on 14th September, 2020. 22. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the period of limitation would run from the date of completion of the contract, i.e., 29th September, 2017, when the obligations under the work orders were completed. Reliance is placed upon the order passed by the Supreme Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation Order in Suo Moto W.P(C) 3/2020 dated 8th March 2021, whereby the Supreme Court has given benefit for the period from 15th March, 2020 to 14th March, 2021, on account of onset of COVID pandemic. 23. In terms of Article 113 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, a limitation period of three (3) years has been prescribed for suits for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Schedule. In the present case, each deduction made by the respondent from the petitioner's bills gave rise to a distinct cause of action. If the petitioner contended that any such deduction was illegal, then the petitioner was required to institute a suit for recovery within the period of three years from the date of the deduction. Hence, this Court does not find any merit in the submission of the peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and labour cess from the payments due to the petitioner therein. The co-ordinate bench allowed the said writ petition and held that the deductions made by the respondent were unlawful. The judgment in Metro Waste Handling (supra) was followed by another judgment of a co-ordinate bench in Hind Construction (supra). 29. Notably, the writ petitions in Metro Waste Handling (supra) and Hind Construction (supra) were filed in the year 2016. Therefore, the issue of limitation, delay and laches did not arise in the said cases. However, the present writ petitions were filed by the petitioner only after the aforesaid judgment in Metro Waste Handling (supra) was delivered on 12th May, 2020. 30. On behalf of the respondent, reliance is placed on the judgment of the division bench of this Court in New Variety (supra). In the said case, the appellant/Govt. of NCT of Delhi withheld payments from the three (3) bills raised by the respondent therein towards hire charges. The single judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents relying upon the judgment in another similar writ petition. The division bench reversed the judgment of the single judge on the ground of limitation. The di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The respondents waited for more than three years thereafter also, for filing their petition. Even if it is to be held that the claim of M/s Punjabi Tent House was also barred by limitation, wrong decision and more so on the point of law, as the plea of limitation in the present case is, cannot constitute a precedent for allowing other time barred claims." [emphasis supplied] 31. The aforesaid judgment of the division bench in New Variety (supra) was followed by another division bench in Rosa Power Supply (supra). In the said writ petition also, the petitioner had raised a monetary claim and filed the said writ petition only after favourable orders were passed in another writ petition. Holding that the petitioner in the said case was a fence-sitter, the division bench dismissed the said writ petition. 32. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are set out below: "8. The matter in fact is not res integra. A Division Bench of this Court (of which one of us Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. was a member), in Government of NCT of Delhi Vs. New Variety Tent House 189 (2012) DLT 65 has held that money claim, suit for which has become barred by time/limitation, cannot b....