JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal, J. 1. The writ petitioner is a contractor under ONGC (respondent No. 1) for providing light vehicles on rental basis. The writ petitioner was given the first work order for supplying vehicles for the year 2002 against NIT No. AGTATPT/LV Geeps)/10/2002 dated February 22, 2002. On the basis of the same NIT further work orders were also issued in subsequent years. 2. Under the Finance Act, 1994, Chapter V was inserted introducing the concept of "service tax". Cab providers were also brought within the purview of service tax with effect from July 16, 1997. Thereafter respondent No. 4, i.e., the Superintendent, Service Tax, Agartala Range, issued notices to the writ petitioner for depositing service tax. Since the petitioner was of the view that he was only a collector of service tax on behalf of the department, he requested the ONGC to reimburse the service tax from the period from October, 2004 to August, 2005 by way of raising supplementary bills on December 29, 2005. Prior to that the ONGC was reminded about their liability to pay service tax vide letter dated December 5, 2005 (annexure 6). However, the ONGC did not accede to the prayer of the petitioner and on the other hand service tax department threatened to take coercive method to realise the service tax. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 62,476 on account of service tax for the period from November, 2006 to January, 2007 and this was reimbursed by the ONGC through cheque dated March 31, 2007. However, the ONGC has not taken the liability to reimburse the service tax liability for the previous period. Hence this writ petition has been filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to command the ONGC (respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3) to reimburse the service tax to the writ petitioner. 3. I have heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Shri S. Deb, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents-ONGC. The service tax department was represented by Shri P.K. Biswas, learned Asstt. S.G. 4. Since the respondents have been duly notified and that they have filed their exhaustive counter and since the learned Counsel for both the parties have also made exhaustive submissions, the writ petition is being decided at the admission stage. The service tax department was represented by Shri P.K. Biswas, learned Asstt. S.G. 4. Since the respondents have been duly notified and that they have filed their exhaustive counter and since the learned Counsel for both the parties have also made exhaustive submissions, the writ petition is being decided at the admission stage. Accordingly rule is issued making it returnable forthwith. 5. As noted earlier, the work order was issued on the basis of NIT dated February 22, 2002. Clause 10 of the said NIT deals with tax liability and Clause 10.2 relates to liability of service tax. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for both the sides, it appears to me that essentially I am called upon to examine and interpret the tax liability Clause mentioned in Clause 10.2 which is reproduced below : 10. Tax liability.- 10.1... 10.2 Service tax/sales tax applicable if any, to the service under this contract shall also be responsibility and payable by contractor. ONGC may, however, deduct taxes at source in accordance with applicable rules/regulations/laws/acts of the Government concerned. 6. For effective disposal of the writ petition it is also necessary to quote the relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, which are as below: 65. Definitions.- In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,– (1)... (2) 'assessee' means a person responsible for collecting the service tax payable under the provisions of this Chapter and includes his agent; (3) to 6.... (7) 'person responsible for collecting the service tax' means a person who is required to collect service tax under this Chapter or is required to pay any other sum of money under this Chapter and includes every person in respect of whom any proceedings under this Chapter have been taken; ... 68. Collection and recovery of service tax- (1) Every stock-broker, the telegraph authority or the insurer who is providing taxable services to any person shall collect the service tax at the rate specified in Section 66. (2).... (3) Any person, responsible for collecting the service tax, who fails to collect the tax in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1) shall, notwithstanding such failure, be liable to pay the tax to the credit of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (2). 7. (2).... (3) Any person, responsible for collecting the service tax, who fails to collect the tax in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1) shall, notwithstanding such failure, be liable to pay the tax to the credit of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (2). 7. It was the submission of Shri Bhowmik, learned senior Counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner being the assessee is the collecting agent of the service tax and the consumer is liable to bear the service tax. According to the learned Counsel Clause 10.2 of the NIT has to be interpreted in the light of the provisions of the Finance Act. Shri Bhowmik also contended that by virtue of the said Act ONGC had reimbursed an amount of Rs. 62,476 in the month of March, 2007. Hence the ONGC is now estopped from raising the plea that they are not liable to reimburse the service tax. 8. Shri P.K. Biswas, learned Asstt. S.G., submitted that since the writ petitioner is an assessee under the Finance Act, 1994 being service provider, it is his liability to pay the service tax. However, learned Asstt. S.G. submitted that whether the writ petitioner is entitled to get reimbursement of the same from the ONGC, it is not the concern of the tax department. 9. On the other hand, Shri Deb, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents-ONGC submitted that since the contract agreement is clear with regard to the liability of the contractor for payment of service tax it would not be proper for this court to change the language of the stipulation as it would amount to re-writing the contract. The learned Counsel for the respondents-ONGC submitted that the reimbursement of Rs. 62,476 was made against a new work order wherein the ONGC had taken the liability for the same. This submission was made on the basis of work orders dated November 3, 2006 and January 24, 2006. 10. The learned Counsel for the respondents-ONGC submitted that the reimbursement of Rs. 62,476 was made against a new work order wherein the ONGC had taken the liability for the same. This submission was made on the basis of work orders dated November 3, 2006 and January 24, 2006. 10. To draw comparison with regard to the tax liability with reference to the previous work orders it is necessary to extract the relevant Clause with regard to service tax as could be found in the work order dated November 3, 2006, which is as below: The service tax will be reimbursed to contractors at 12.24 per cent on qualifying amount as per existing guidelines upon production of proof of payment of service tax to the concerned Government authorities for this work. All other terms and conditions will be governed by the work order No. AGT/TPT/ LV0EEP)/10/O2 dated August 30, 2002 which was issued by Logistics Department based on NIT No. AGT/TPT/ LVGEEP)/10/2002 dated February 22, 2002 which was opened on April 5, 2002. 11. A reading of various provisions of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 indicates that the assessee is the collecting agent of the service tax and it is the consumer who has to bear this liability. Despite this being the legal position, Clause 10.2 was drafted in such a way that an interpretation can also be drawn that it is the contractor's liability to pay the service tax. It is true that if one compares service tax Clause in the work orders of 2002 and 2006 the aforesaid inference could be drawn. However, Clause 10.2 of the NIT dated February 22, 2002 has to be in consonance with the statutory provisions of the Finance Act which imposes limited liability upon the assessee to collect the service tax from the consumer and pay to the department. 12. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the work order dated November 3, 2006 was a continuation of the work orders issued under the NIT dated February 22, 2002 and as such the clarification given in the subsequent work orders should be applied to the previous work orders as well. 12. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the work order dated November 3, 2006 was a continuation of the work orders issued under the NIT dated February 22, 2002 and as such the clarification given in the subsequent work orders should be applied to the previous work orders as well. However, according Shri Deb, the learned Counsel for the ONGC, the work order dated November 3, 2006 is an independent work order containing its own terms and conditions and as such the terms of this work order cannot be read into previous work orders. The learned Counsel for the respondents-ONGC also submitted that the NIT dated February 22, 2002 was valid only for a period of 3 (three) years and as such the work order dated November 3, 2006 wherein the ONGC has taken the liability to reimburse the service tax cannot be applied or adopted for the previous work orders. Clause 4 of the NIT deals with the period of contract. For ready reference Clause 4.1 is extracted below: 4.1 The contract shall be valid for a period of 03 (three) years from the date the contract is made effective by the ONGC and shall expire automatically after validity period is over unless further extended by ONGC in writing. (Here italicised mine) 14. Apparently under Clause 4.1 the period of contract can be extended by the ONGC. Under work order dated November 3, 2006 (annexure 15) there is a reference of previous work order dated August 30, 2002 as well as NIT dated February 22, 2002. Hence, it appears to me that the work order dated November 3, 2006 is essentially an extension of the contract period beyond 3 (three) years. In other words, if the ONGC has taken its liability to reimburse the service tax in the work order dated November 3, 2006, there can be no reason to deny the same benefit to the contractor for the previous work orders issued against the same NIT. I Say so because the work order dated November 3, 2006 is in consonance with the provisions of the Finance Act whereas Clause 10.2 in the NIT is apparently contrary to the Act. 15. I Say so because the work order dated November 3, 2006 is in consonance with the provisions of the Finance Act whereas Clause 10.2 in the NIT is apparently contrary to the Act. 15. A technical objection was also raised about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that as per the terms and conditions incorporated in the NIT all the disputes and difference should be referred to the arbitrator and as such disputes should be decided in accordance with the arbitration law. However, the objection is not sustainable for two grounds. Firstly the writ petition was filed in the month of September, 2007 and interim order was also passed in favour of the writ petitioner. Despite that the aforesaid technical objection was not raised. Besides this, the ONGC has also not raised this objection specifically in their affidavit-in-opposition. Secondly, if the disputes could have been resolved by way of arbitration, I fail to understand as to why the ONGC did not invoke the arbitration Clause on receipt of the notice from the writ petitioner asking for reimbursement of the service tax. Hence, I am not inclined to reject the writ petition on these grounds. 16. For the reasons set out hereinabove, I hold that it is the liability and responsibility of the ONGC (respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3) to reimburse the service tax to the writ petitioner. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Interim order stands vacated.