IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34656 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. M-FAR CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., NO.66, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001, REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. 2. M-FAR HOTELS LTD., NH 47 BYE-PASS, KUNDANNUR JUNCTION, MARADU, KOCHI-682 304 REPRESENTED BY COMPANY SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUILDING AND OTHER WORKERS WELFARE CESS, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY LABOUR OFFICER AND ASSESSING OFFICER, BUILDING AND OTHER WORKERS WELFARE CESS, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. BY G.P. SMT. SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.34656 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 2nd December, 2008 J U D G M E N T In spite of service of notice by messenger, there is no appearance on behalf of respondents. In the circumstances, I have taken up the writ petition for consideration and heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader, I proceed to dispose of the same. 2. Return filed by the petitioner under the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1966 was not completely accepted by the Assessing Officer. A sum of Rs.6,70,680/- was proposed to be assessed as cess under the Act. Respondents made a modification and the amount was reduced from the proposed sum of Rs. 6,70,680/- to 6,10,000/-. Order of assessment was passed in this regard on 18.11.2002. Petitioner was satisfied with the same. W.P ( C) No.34656 of 2008 2 2. About six years later the 2nd respondent has now issued Exhibit P5 notice demanding further amount of Rs.1,67,713/- towards Construction and other Workers Welfare Cess. The same is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. It may be noted that petitioner has submitted his objections to Exhibit P5 as per Exhibit P6. It may further be noted that Exhibit P5 was not preceeded by any process by which an additional demand in the nature of Exhibit P5 would be justified. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents to treat Exhibit P5 as a notice of show cause. Petitioner shall be heard on Exhibit P6 and any other objections that he may prefer in this respect. Petitioner shall be heard in this regard and 2nd respondent shall specifically consider the objections raised by the petitioner including the one regarding lack of jurisdiction on the part of the 2nd respondent to issue a demand notice six years after the completion of assessment. Obviously, the demand contained in Exhibit P5 cannot be enforced in W.P ( C) No.34656 of 2008 3 circumstances where Exhibit P5 is directed to be treated as a notice of show cause. Any demand can be raised only after a fresh order is passed as above mentioned by the 2nd respondent. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.34656 of 2008 4 W.P ( C) No.34656 of 2008 5