State Of Rajasthan vs M/S. Manda Developers And Builders Pvt. … on 8 August, 2025

0
3


HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI

Order

REPORTABLE : 08/08/2025

1. The delay in filing the appeals is condoned. Accordingly, the

applications for condonation of delay are allowed.

[2025:RJ-JD:35429-DB] (6 of 13) [SAW-181/2019]

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the

matter is taken up today itself and heard finally at this stage.

3. The present batch of special appeals arise out of common

judgment dated 14.09.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in

batch of writ petitions, therefore, they are being decided by this

common judgment.

4. Briefly noted the facts in the present appeals are that the

respondents herein are registered firms/companies enlisted as

contractors with the Irrigation Department, Government of

Rajasthan. They were awarded various contracts under the

Rajasthan Water Sector Restructuring Project (RWSRP), which

were sponsored by the International Development Association and

funded by the International Bank for Reconstruction and

Development–collectively referred to as “The World Bank”. The

Central Government had issued two notifications–Customs

Notification No. 108/1995 dated 28.08.1995 and Excise

Notification No. 85/1999 dated 06.07.1999–granting exemption

from excise duty for goods falling under the Schedule to the

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, when imported into India for

execution of projects financed by the United Nations or any other

international organization. As per the conditions contained in the

bid documents, to avail such exemption, contractors were required

to obtain an excise exemption certificate from the Executive Head

of the Project Implementing Authority, countersigned by the

Principal Secretary or Secretary of the Finance Department of the

concerned State Government, verifying that the goods were

required for execution of the approved project. The respondent

firms submitted declarations and supporting documents in the

[2025:RJ-JD:35429-DB] (7 of 13) [SAW-181/2019]

prescribed format, indicating the list of goods such as cement,

diesel, mechanical compactors, trucks, etc., for which the

exemption was sought. Upon due verification, exemption

certificates were issued by the competent authority and duly

countersigned by the Finance Secretary. The respondents availed

excise duty exemption on the basis of these certificates, including

in particular for cement. After the completion of the work by the

respondents, they received letters dated 05.03.2013 and other

similar communications from the concerned Executive Engineer,

informing that the exemption availed on cement was irregular and

proposing recovery of the excise amount. The ground for such

recovery was that cement, being an indigenous good

manufactured by an Indian company, did not qualify as an

“imported” good as contemplated under the relevant notifications.

It was also alleged that the exemption certificate had been

obtained belatedly, contrary to Clause 13.3 of the Instructions to

Bidders (ITB), which required submission of the certificate at the

bid stage. Subsequently, audit objections were raised by the

Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), pointing out

irregularities in the issuance of such exemption certificates to the

respondents. Acting on these objections, the department initiated

recovery proceedings against the respondents for the excise duty

benefit allegedly availed irregularly. The respondents challenged

the said recovery proceedings as well as the audit objections by

filing writ petitions before the learned Single Judge of the High

Court. It is pertinent to note that the CAG, despite being a

necessary party, neither appeared before the Writ Court nor filed

any reply. The learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated

[2025:RJ-JD:35429-DB] (8 of 13) [SAW-181/2019]

14.09.2018, allowed the writ petitions and quashed the recovery

orders primarily on the ground that no opportunity of hearing had

been afforded to the respondents before initiating recovery, and

further, that no action had been taken against the government

officials who had issued and countersigned the exemption

certificates. Hence, the present appeals have been filed.



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here