IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2011 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29356 of 2011(T) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- T.I.RAJU, S/O. LATE T.E.ITHAPIRI, AGED 63 YEARS, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, THURUTHUMMEL HOUSE, KUSUMAGIRI P.O., KOCHI-30. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.JOSE SMT.TESSY JOSE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 001. 2. M/S. ELECTRO STEEL CASTING LTD., 148/150, (OLD NO.98/99), LUZ CHURCH ROAD, CHENNAI-600 101. 3. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DIVISION 5, 692, MHU COMPLEX, NANDANAM, CHENNAI-600 035. R1 BY ADV. SRI. N. DINESH, SC., K.W.A. R3 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC,CB EX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 29356/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF CONDITIONS FOR SUPPLYING AND LAYING PIPES ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FOR EXEMPTION GIVEN BY THE DISTRICT COLECTOR PALAKKAD DATED 20/12/2006. P3: COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE ACCOUNTS MEMBER, KWA DATED 18/04/2008. P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18/12/2008 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF LETTER DATED 06/09/2009 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF LETTER DATED 02/02/2010 BY THE PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF LETTER DATED 21/11/2010 THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P8: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC. NO.2699/2011 DATED 21/01/2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P9: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05/03/2011 SENT BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P H DIVISION SHORNUR TO THE PETITIONER. P10: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10/03/2011 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KWA, KWA P H DIVISION, SHORHUR. P11: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07/05/2011 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT WATER AUTHORITY. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 29356 of 2011 T ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 21st day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner was a contractor of the Water Authority. In this writ petition what is complained of is that the Water Authority has made unauthorised deductions from the petitioner's bill. According to the petitioner, in terms of the notification issued by the Government of India, based on a certificate issued by the District Collector, they claimed exemption from central excise duty, when they purchased pipes from the second respondent. It is submitted that, when the final bills were settled by the Water Authority, they made deductions from their bill more than in excess of what was allowed by the manufacturer towards duty exemption. It is this deduction which is complained of in this writ petition. 2. However, from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Water Authority, what is seen is that the exemption from duty is a benefit which is available to the W.P.(C) No.29356/2011 : 2 : Water Authority and that under the notification issued by the Government of India, the Water Authority is eligible for exemption of 16.32% of the price. It is stated that, a certificate was obtained by the petitioner from the District Collector at the request of the Water Authority and on its production before the manufacturer, as against 16.32% exemption, the manufacturer allowed exemption of only 6.32%. It is stated that this was an arrangement between the petitioner and the manufacturer and that when the final bills of the petitioner were settled, the Water Authority claimed exemption of 16.32% itself. According to the Water Authority, the deduction they made is fully in compliance with the notification issued by the Government of India. 3. From the submissions made by the counsel for the Water Authority, what is seen is that it is entitled to get 16.32% exemption. However, the manufacturer allowed only 6.32% to the petitioner, when they purchased the pipes. In other words, the manufacturer did not allow full exemption. W.P.(C) No.29356/2011 : 3 : However, the Water Authority made full deduction of 16.32% from the final bill of the petitioner which cannot be said to be illegal. I see no reason to interfere with the matter. Writ petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/21/11 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge