Page 73 - GSTL_23rd July 2020_Vol 38_Part 4

2020 ] METRRO WASTE HANDLING PVT. LTD. v. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPN. 439
pending amount to petitioners immediately - Article 226 of Constitution of
India. [paras 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 30]
Contract - Interpretation thereof - Conduct of parties - Settled that
conduct of parties in enforcing a mutual contract, is an indicator as to how they
understood it - Article 226 of Constitution of India. [paras 20, 21, 22, 23]
Writ jurisdiction - Recovery of money from Municipality - Normally
writ jurisdiction is not maintainable in such cases and civil suit has to be filed
for recovery - However settled in catena of decisions that writ jurisdiction can
be exercised sparingly in money recovery cases depending on facts and cir-
cumstances of a particular case, especially if facts are undisputed - In instant
case, aforesaid authority was withholding money for a non-existent Service
Tax by acting in grossly arbitrary manner and retention of money was without
authority of law - Writ jurisdiction maintainable - Article 226 of Constitution
of India. [paras 25, 26, 27, 28, 29]
Petition allowed
CASES CITED
Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra — (2011) 2 SCC 439 — Relied on ................... [Para 26]
Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat — (1975) 1 SCC 199 — Relied on .......................... [Para 21]
Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. v. GMR Vemagiri Power Generation Limited
— (2018) 3 SCC 716 — Relied on ................................................................................................. [Para 22]
U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Kanoria Industrial Ltd.
— 2001 (128) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Relied on ..................................................................................... [Para 28]
REPRESENTED BY : Ms. Manmeet Arora, S/Shri Sarad K. Sunny,
Ms. Pavitra Kaur and Harkirat Singh, Advocates, for
the Petitioner.
Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Standing Counsel with
Ms. Swagata Bhuyan, Ms. Khushboo Nahar and
Ms. Latika Malhotra, Advocates, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the
letter dated 15-5-2015 issued by the respondent/SDMC. By the said letter the
respondent had asked the petitioner to submit the paid receipt/challan through
which the service tax on the amounts released by the respondent for the period
of 2012-13 and 2013-14 were deposited by the petitioner to the competent author-
ity. Other connected reliefs are also sought.
2. The issue revolves around the act of the respondent in deducting the
service tax amounts from the consideration payable to the petitioner on the al-
leged ground that the petitioner was liable to pay service tax under the contract
but was exempted and hence, the consideration payable by the respondent gets
reduced.
3. As per the petitioner, the respondent has withheld a sum of Rs.
1,97,00,109/- towards the element of service tax from the running account bills
raised by the petitioner for the period w.e.f. June, 2012 to May, 2016.
4. The case of the petitioner is that it was providing the services of lift-
ing/collecting of municipal solid waste/garbage/malba/drain silt etc. and
dumping the same to nearby designated site. It is pleaded that the services pro-
vided by the petitioner to the respondent under the said work order are exempt-
ed from taxable services as the same form part of the exempted list of services
under Section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994. It is also pleaded that the service tax

GST LAW TIMES  23rd July 2020  73