Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 166 (AP)

G. L. Prasad v. Dravidian University

2022-02-09

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

body2022
ORDER : 1. The petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not reimbursing the service tax to a tune of Rs. 29,66,570/- paid by the petitioner in works contract, even after approval of the Works and Building Committee as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to respondents to reimburse the afore stated amount with interest @ 24% per annum. 2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus: (a) The petitioner is a Class-I contractor and he constructed a Library Building for the respondents after completion of required formalities. Execution of the work was completed and building was handed over to the respondents. (b) The Works and Buildings Committee of the respondent University in its meeting held on 20.02.2016 took up the issue of payment of service tax under Agenda No. 5 and recommended to approve the payment of service tax as it is a statutory requirement as per the notification issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Government of India by according additional sanction. Subsequent to this decision, the petitioner paid service tax on every bill on four occasions without any delay in accordance with law. The District Audit Officer, Chittoor, also opined that the service tax has to be paid and reimbursed. The concerned Service Tax Department also clarified vide its letter dated 18.09.2017 that the service tax has to be paid. So also the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Department confirmed that service tax has to be paid. In that view, the petitioner made a representation dated 26.09.2018 by enclosing copy of the order in W.P. No. 32048/2018 requesting the respondent authorities to reimburse the service tax paid by the petitioner. In response, the 1st respondent informed that the order of this Hon'ble Court will be placed before the Executive Council and action will be taken thereafter. (c) Subsequently the petitioner submitted two other representations dated 22.11.2018 and 12.04.2019 reminding the respondents about the reimbursement of service tax, but there was no proper response. Hence, he filed an application under the Right to Information Act, for which a letter dated 17.06.2019 was provided to him. The respondents informed that the matter was placed for seeking legal opinion. Even though three years passed the service tax was not reimbursed and therefore, the petitioner suffered a lot. Hence, he filed an application under the Right to Information Act, for which a letter dated 17.06.2019 was provided to him. The respondents informed that the matter was placed for seeking legal opinion. Even though three years passed the service tax was not reimbursed and therefore, the petitioner suffered a lot. Hence, the writ petition. 3. It should be noted before filing counter by the respondents, the learned single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Sri. Justice D.V.S.S. Somayajulu) heard the matter and in view of the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, having found that there was no much dispute about the liability of the respondents to reimburse the service tax amount to the petitioner, allowed the writ petition on 17.09.2019 and directed the respondents to pay the amount claimed by the petitioner along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of bill till the date of actual payment within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 4. Subsequently, the respondents filed review petition in I.A. No. 1/2020 seeking to review the order dated 17.09.2019 on the ground that the services of previous Standing Counsel were terminated by the University as on the date of hearing on previous occasion and hence, he had no authority to represent on behalf of the respondents and also that in view of certain factual and legal aspects involved in the matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on merits. Learned Judge, after hearing the present and previous Standing Counsels and also the petitioner, allowed the review petition in the interests of justice on 12.03.2020 to enable the respondent University to produce all the legal and factual aspects before the Court. 5. Pursuant to the above order, the 2nd respondent filed counter opposing the writ petition with the following contentions: (a) The 2nd respondent invited tenders for the work of “Construction of University Library Building” at an estimated cost of Rs. 4,41,00,000/- (SSR 2013-14) on 09.03.2015 vide NIT No. 08/DU/Engg/2014-15. Basing on the lowest quoted rate i.e. 5.54% less than the estimated rates, the work was entrusted to the petitioner, who is the Contractor at Tirupati, for Rs. 4,00,19,288/- and entered into an Agreement No. 05/DU/Engg/2015-16 dated 20.07.2015. The work was completed at a cost of Rs. 4,97,18,721/- and University paid the bills. Basing on the lowest quoted rate i.e. 5.54% less than the estimated rates, the work was entrusted to the petitioner, who is the Contractor at Tirupati, for Rs. 4,00,19,288/- and entered into an Agreement No. 05/DU/Engg/2015-16 dated 20.07.2015. The work was completed at a cost of Rs. 4,97,18,721/- and University paid the bills. There was no provision for payment of service tax either in the SSR 2013-14 or in the agreement. (b) It is further contended that in respect of adjudication of any financial claim that may arise concerning the execution of contract with the petitioner, there is a specific clause incorporated in the agreement i.e. clause 3(ii) of Articles of agreement dated 20.07.2015 whereunder all claims exceeding Rs. 50,000/- in value shall be decided by a competent Civil Court by way of regular suit. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable and petitioner has to approach competent Civil Court to get an adjudication. (c) The resolution passed in the meeting of Building Committee dated 20.02.2016 requires to be ratified and approved by the Executive Council in its meeting. As such the resolution passed by the Building Committee which is only a recommendatory in nature cannot be relied upon by the petitioner to make a claim. In this context, it is submitted that the resolution of the Building Committee was not subsequently ratified by the Executive Council. The provisions were made in the agreement dated 20.07.2015 only with regard to payment of VAT at 5% and income tax at 1% and there was no clause in the agreement for payment or reimbursement of service tax to the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent University is not under contractual or statutory obligation to pay to the petitioner. As per the clauses incorporated in the agreement dated 20.07.2015, the respondent has paid the amounts relating to VAT, I.T. Seigniorage charges and welfare cess as per the agreed rates. Beyond those amounts, the respondent University is not liable to pay or reimburse, particularly the service tax, to the petitioner. (d) The Executive Council is the competent authority to take policy decisions and manage the finances of the University. Hence, the matter was referred to the Executive Council which has sought certain clarifications and information. Beyond those amounts, the respondent University is not liable to pay or reimburse, particularly the service tax, to the petitioner. (d) The Executive Council is the competent authority to take policy decisions and manage the finances of the University. Hence, the matter was referred to the Executive Council which has sought certain clarifications and information. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 32048/2018 before the Hon'ble High Court with similar prayer and High Court directed the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 05.03.2018 of the petitioner which is pending before 2ndrespondent within six weeks in accordance with law from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. (e) As per the above directions, a detailed reply vide Letter No. DU/LC/Engg/Service-Tax/ LCB/2018 dated 23.10.2018 was sent to the petitioner stating the matter will be placed before the Executive Council in the ensuing meeting and basing on the decision of the Executive Council, appropriate action will be taken. Accordingly, the matter was placed before the Executive Council meeting held on 29.03.2019. The Executive Council resolved to take the legal advice and directed to place the matter in the next meeting of the Executive Council. Accordingly, the matter was addressed to the University Standing Counsel to give legal advice by consulting the Tax Expert. The Standing Counsel of the University submitted his opinion vide letter dated 05.08.2019. (f) Denying the delay it is contended that the respondents tried their level best to expedite the matter but due to many reasons it was delayed. It was contended that there is no clear provision for payment of service tax in the agreement. The provisions were made in the agreement dated 20.07.2015 with regard to payment of VAT @ 5% and income tax at 1% only. 6. It is further contended, the nature of execution of the work by the petitioner does not fall under the purview of service tax. Hence, the Executive Council of the respondent University did not approve or adopt notifications pertaining to payment of service tax. As there is no specific clause in the agreement, the respondent University is not under the contractual obligation to reimburse service tax to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed. 7. Heard arguments of Sri. K. Srinivasulu, learned counsel for petitioner and Smt. P. Padmavathi, Standing Counsel for the respondents. 8. As there is no specific clause in the agreement, the respondent University is not under the contractual obligation to reimburse service tax to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed. 7. Heard arguments of Sri. K. Srinivasulu, learned counsel for petitioner and Smt. P. Padmavathi, Standing Counsel for the respondents. 8. Reiterating the pleadings of the writ petition, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the estimates for construction of Library Building for the 1st respondent University were approved in the year 2014, by which time service tax was exempted in respect of services provided under works contract to educational institutions i.e. respondent University. Therefore, the respondent authorities might not have included service tax component in the estimates. However, by the time notification was issued and agreement was entered into in July 2015, the service tax exemption earlier granted on educational institutions was withdrawn by the Central Government and unaware of this fact the petitioner as well as the respondents did not incorporate the service tax component in the agreement. Be that it may, learned counsel would further argue, when the petitioner was about to submit bills as per phase-wise completion of the work, he came to know that service tax is payable on the works contract. So he addressed letter to the University authorities for reimbursement of the service tax on gross amount of the bill payable to him. The Building Committee of the respondent University in its meeting held on 20.02.2016 took up the issue of refund of the service tax in Agenda No. 5 and resolved to recommend to approve payment of the service tax of Rs. 22,41,080/-. Basing on such resolution, honestly believing that the University would reimburse the service tax, the petitioner deducted the applicable service tax from the gross amount of each bill and remitted to the Central Service Tax Department. In all, he paid service tax to the tune of Rs. 29.00 lakhs and odd and the respondent Department is obligated to reimburse the same. In spite of repeated representations, some of which on the directions of this Court in W.P. No. 32048/2018, the respondent authorities evaded payment of the same on an untenable ground that there was no reimbursement clause in the agreement. 29.00 lakhs and odd and the respondent Department is obligated to reimburse the same. In spite of repeated representations, some of which on the directions of this Court in W.P. No. 32048/2018, the respondent authorities evaded payment of the same on an untenable ground that there was no reimbursement clause in the agreement. Learned counsel would vehemently argue that Service Tax is an indirect tax and the dealer has to collect the same from the service recipient and pay to the department. In that view, at the inception, he requested the University to pay the Service Tax and on their resolution only he paid the service tax on behalf of the University. Therefore, the respondent authorities are estopped from contending that there was no agreement to that effect and the Executive Council cannot approve the recommendation of the Building Committee. He prayed to allow the writ petition. 9. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents Smt. P. Padmavathi argued that the petitioner is liable to pay service tax and there is no express term in the agreement dated 20.07.2015 to the effect that the respondent University will bear the burden of service tax in the place of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek for reimbursement of the tax. Learned counsel relied upon the decision in Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. vs. Dewan Chand Ram Saran, MANU/SC/0327/2012 : 2012 (5) SCC 306 to contend that parties by contract can fix responsibility of payment of tax on a particular party to the contract. Since there is no such express term employed in the contract, learned counsel emphasized, respondent University is not liable to pay or reimburse the service tax. She further argued that the Building Committee of the University made only a recommendation to the Executive Council which is the final authority to take a decision on the financial aspects. The Executive Council having considered the factual and legal aspects rightly rejected the request of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot shore upon his claim on the mere recommendation of the Building Committee. Learned counsel further argued that as per clause 3 of the Articles of agreement, any claim exceeding Rs. 50,000/- relating to the contract shall be decided by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction by way of a regular suit and in that view, writ petition is not maintainable. She thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 10. Learned counsel further argued that as per clause 3 of the Articles of agreement, any claim exceeding Rs. 50,000/- relating to the contract shall be decided by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction by way of a regular suit and in that view, writ petition is not maintainable. She thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 10. The points for consideration are: (1) Whether the respondent University is liable to reimburse the service tax to the petitioner? (2) Whether the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the express term in the agreement dated 20.07.2015 that any claim exceeding Rs. 50,000/- related to the contract shall be decided by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction? (3) To what relief? 11. Point No. 1: Admittedly the respondent University invited tenders for the work of “Construction of University Library Building” at an estimated cost of Rs. 4,41,00,000/- (SSR 2013-14) on 09.03.2015 vide NIT No. 08/DU/Engg/2014-15. The writ petitioner offered lowest quoted rate i.e. 5.54% less than the estimated rate and therefore, the work was entrusted to him at Rs. 4,00,19,288/- and in that regard an agreement vide No. 05/DU/Engg/2015-16 dated 20.07.2015 was entered into by the parties. It is further admitted fact that the work was completed at a cost of Rs. 4,97,18,721/- vide Work Completion Certificate dated 06.11.2017 issued by the respondent University, a copy of which is placed on record along with material papers by the writ petitioner. The University paid the bills to that extent. To this extent there is no demur: (a) However, the bone of contention is with regard to the payment of service tax. It should be noted that the estimate for the construction of Library building was approved on 01.03.2014 by the Executive Council for an amount of Rs. 4.41 Cr. prepared basing on the prevailing SSR 2013-14 of the R&B Department (vide copy of 55th meeting dated 20.02.2016 of the Works and Building Committee of the University filed along with material papers by the writ petitioner). By the date of approval of the aforesaid estimate, the Mega Exemption Scheme issued by the Government of India vide its notification No. 25/2012 - Service Tax dated 20.06.2012, was in force. As per the said scheme, services provided to the Government, a local body or a Governmental authority by way of construction etc. By the date of approval of the aforesaid estimate, the Mega Exemption Scheme issued by the Government of India vide its notification No. 25/2012 - Service Tax dated 20.06.2012, was in force. As per the said scheme, services provided to the Government, a local body or a Governmental authority by way of construction etc. for different kinds of uses, one of which under S. No. 12(c) is “educational purpose” were exempted from payment of service tax. In that view, it appears, in the original estimate the service tax component was not included. However, subsequently by way of another Notification No. 6/2015 - Service Tax dated 01.03.2015, the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Government of India has omitted S. No. 12(c), meaning thereby, the exemption of service tax in respect of construction works undertaken for the Government for educational purpose which was in force was deleted w.e.f. 01.04.2015 (check date). However, in respect of the same works, for which, the agreement was entered prior to 01.03.2015, exemption was again provided by inserting new clause 12(A) under the said notification. 12. Be that it may, perhaps not knowing these developments, the respondent University issued tender notification NIT No. 08/DU/Engg/2014-15 on 09.03.2015 i.e. within short time after the issuance of Notification No. 6/2015 dated 01.03.2015 deleting the exemptions. Since the petitioner emerged as successful tenderer, agreement was entered into by the parties on 20.07.2015. Thus, it is significant to note that tender notification and agreement were taken place subsequent to deletion of exemption on construction works for Government. However, in the tender notification and in agreement, the parties did not mention anything about the service tax payable to the Department, obviously, being unaware of the above developments regarding payment of service tax as stated supra. 13. While so, the petitioner on phase-wise completion of the work, used to submit bills for payment. At that time, he came to know that service tax was payable in respect of the contract works undertaken even for the Government purpose. Therefore, he addressed a letter dated 27.10.2015 for reimbursement of service tax. On his letter, the 2nd respondent sought for the opinion of the District Audit Officer who in his letter in Lr. At that time, he came to know that service tax was payable in respect of the contract works undertaken even for the Government purpose. Therefore, he addressed a letter dated 27.10.2015 for reimbursement of service tax. On his letter, the 2nd respondent sought for the opinion of the District Audit Officer who in his letter in Lr. S.A. No. 4211 dated 21.12.2015 (copy of the letter is filed along with material papers by the petitioner) informed that in view of the different notifications issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), service tax has to be paid to the Department @14% upto 14.11.2015 and thereafter @ 14.5% by the service provider and hence, service tax has to be added to the estimates from 01.04.2015 onwards. He further opined that since the estimates for construction of the university library building were already approved on 01.03.2014, revised estimates have to be prepared duly adding service tax @ 14.5% to the estimated amount and approval has to be obtained from the competent authority. He concluded that the payment of service tax is an option and made by the university or by the contractor. Accordingly, the matter was placed before the Building Committee of the University in its 55th meeting held on 20.02.2016 (copy of the agenda of 55th meeting of the Works and Buildings Committee is filed along with material papers by the petitioner). The Building Committee passed the following resolution on Agenda No. 5: “Resolved to recommend to approve the payment of the Service Tax of Rs. 22,41,080/- as it is statutory requirement as per the Notification issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Government of India by according additional sanction. Also resolved to apply the same to all the ongoing works. In future it should be mandatory for the participating tenderers to furnish service tax registration for participating in the tenders. However, in all future works, Service Tax may be included in the estimates as per the guidelines of Government of India.” 14. Thus, the tone and tenor of the above resolution was that the Building Committee in principle agreed to recommend for payment of the service tax to the petitioner as it was a statutory requirement. Most importantly the Committee opined that in all future works service tax may be included in the estimates. 15. Thus, the tone and tenor of the above resolution was that the Building Committee in principle agreed to recommend for payment of the service tax to the petitioner as it was a statutory requirement. Most importantly the Committee opined that in all future works service tax may be included in the estimates. 15. The petitioner basing on the above recommendation of the Building Committee, paid the applicable service tax in each of the part bills raised by him as follows: S. No. Bills Gross Amount Taxable Value (40% on gross) Percentage of Tax Service Tax Challan No. and Date 1. 1st and Part Bill 82,76,807.00 33,10,723.00 14.50% 4,80,055.00 10880 dated 03.06.2016 2. IInd and Part Bill 48,35,635.00 19,34,254.00 15% 2,90,138.00 01671 dated 01.10.2016 3. IIIrd and Part Bill 84,53,019.00 33,81,208.00 15% 5,07,181.00 00001 dated 27.01.2017 4. IVth and Part Bill 1,04,91,491.00 41,96,596.00 15% 6,29,489.00 03034 dated 20.04.2017 5. Final Bill 1,76,61,769.00 70,64,708.00 15% 10,59,707.00 00152 dated 25.01.2018 16. The petitioner produced copies of the payment challans along with memo dated 01.10.2021. The petitioner started submitting representations to the respondent University for reimbursement of the service tax. Since there was no positive response from the respondents, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 32048/2018 wherein an order was passed on 10.09.2018 directing the respondents to dispose of the application of petitioner dated 05.03.2018 within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Enclosing the said order, the petitioner requested authorities to consider his representation dated 05.03.2018. A reply was given to the petitioner that the matter was placed before the Executive Council and the decision would be intimated to him. However, since there was no further action on the part of the respondents, present writ petition was filed. 17. In the above backdrop, his contention is that the respondent authorities cannot refuse to reimburse the service tax paid by the petitioner, on the positive recommendation made by the Building Committee, on the sole ground that there was no express term in the agreement dated 20.07.2015 for payment of the service tax. On the other hand, the contention of the respondents is that service tax has to be paid by the service provider and the said burden can be passed on only by incorporating specific term in the contract and since there is no such term in the agreement, the University, need not reimburse the service tax. 18. On the other hand, the contention of the respondents is that service tax has to be paid by the service provider and the said burden can be passed on only by incorporating specific term in the contract and since there is no such term in the agreement, the University, need not reimburse the service tax. 18. I gave my anxious consideration to the issue. Service Tax was introduced for the first time under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f. 01.07.1994. Entry 97 of List-I of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India extends the constitutional rights to the Central Government to levy service tax. The service tax being an indirect tax, its administrative control is vested with the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC). To begin with, service tax was introduced on three services viz., Telephone Services, Non-Life Insurance Services and Stock Brokers' services which subsequently increased to vast number of services. From 1st July 2012, the concept of taxation on services was changed from a Positive list of services approach to a “Negative List Regime.” This changed the taxation system of services from tax on the specified services to tax being levied on all services other than those mentioned in the negative list or which were exempted by a notification. It is in this context, vide Notification No. 25/2012-Service Tax dated 20.06.2012, initially the service tax was exempted on the services provided to the Government, a local authority or a government authority by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installation, completion, fitting out, repair, maintenance, renovation or alteration of different structures, one of which is the structure meant predominantly for educational use. Later this exemption was withdrawn by way of another notification No. 6/2015 Service Tax, dated 01.03.2015. The said notification came into force w.e.f. 01.04.2015. Therefore, it is clear that by 01.03.2014 i.e. on the date of approval of the estimates by the Executive Council and by 09.03.2015, i.e. the date on which tender Notification NIT No. 08/DU/Engg. 2014-15 was issued, the exemption of service tax was in force. However, by 20.07.2015, the date on which agreement was entered into by the parties, the exemption on service tax was withdrawn by the Central Government. It appears, in this peculiar factual background, perhaps the parties have not mentioned in the agreement as to who has to bear the service tax. However, by 20.07.2015, the date on which agreement was entered into by the parties, the exemption on service tax was withdrawn by the Central Government. It appears, in this peculiar factual background, perhaps the parties have not mentioned in the agreement as to who has to bear the service tax. Therefore, the statute has to be referred to know about the liability. 19. Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 deals with the payment of service tax. It reads thus: “68. Payment of service tax (1) Every person providing taxable service to any person shall pay service tax at the rate specified in section 66B in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in respect of such taxable services as may be notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette, the service tax thereon shall be paid by such person and in such manner as may be prescribed at the rate specified in section 66B and all the provisions of this chapter shall apply to such person as if he is the person liable for paying the service tax in relation to such service. Provided that the Central Government may notify the service and the extent of service tax which shall be payable by such person and the provisions of this Chapter shall apply to such person to the extent so specified and the remaining part of the service tax shall be paid by the service provider.” A perusal of sub-section (1) would show that generally a service provider has to pay service tax to the Department. Section 68(2) introduced the concept of reverse charge mechanism under which the service recipient is liable to pay tax and be assessed to tax. Be that it may, a plain reading of section 68(1) will reveal the petitioner in this case being the service provider has to pay service tax to the Department. However, it must be noted that service tax is an indirect tax and the burden of the tax can be passed on to service recipient provided the parties agreed upon to this effect. In Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (supra) in respect of the services rendered by the contractor to the Appellant, the act provided then that it was the Appellant/Service Recipient who is liable for service tax under the Act (reverse charge mechanism). In Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (supra) in respect of the services rendered by the contractor to the Appellant, the act provided then that it was the Appellant/Service Recipient who is liable for service tax under the Act (reverse charge mechanism). However, the Appellant claimed that under specific clause in the agreement he was deducting the service tax from the bills of the contractor. In that context the Supreme Court observed thus: “26. As far as the submission of shifting of tax liability is concerned, as observed in paragraph 9 of Laghu Udyog Bharati (Supra), service tax is an indirect tax, and it is possible that it may be passed on. Therefore, an Assessee can certainly enter into a contract to shift its liability of service tax. Though the Appellant became the Assessee due to amendment of 2000, his position is exactly the same as in respect of Sales Tax, where the seller is the Assessee, and is liable to pay Sales Tax to the tax authorities, but it is open to the seller, under his contract with the buyer, to recover the Sales Tax from the buyer, and to pass on the tax burden to him. Therefore, though there is no difficulty in accepting that after the amendment of 2000 the liability to pay the service tax is on the Appellant as the Assessee, the liability arose out of the services rendered by the Respondent to the Appellant, and that too prior to this amendment when the liability was on the service provider. The provisions concerning service tax are relevant only as between the Appellant as an Assessee under the statute and the tax authorities. This statutory provision can be of no relevance to determine the rights and liabilities between the Appellant and the Respondent as agreed in the contract between two of them. There was nothing in law to prevent the Appellant from entering into an agreement with the Respondent handling contractor that the burden of any tax arising out of obligations of the Respondent under the contract would be borne by the Respondent.” (Emphasis supplied) 20. Thus, it is clear that irrespective of the fact who has to pay the service tax under statute, the parties by contract can fix the liability on any one between them. Thus, it is clear that irrespective of the fact who has to pay the service tax under statute, the parties by contract can fix the liability on any one between them. It goes without saying that if the contract is silent as in the instant case, one has to necessarily fall back on the statute to fix the liability. As rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel for respondents, the agreement dated 20.07.2015 is silent on the liability of service tax being born by whom. Therefore, primarily the petitioner is responsible to pay the service tax. Of course, the petitioner has requested the respondent authorities to reimburse the service tax and in fact the Building Committee in its meeting held on 20.02.2016 recommended to approve the payment of the service tax. However, it is only an act of recommendation which has to be approved by the Executive Council. The same was not ratified by the Executive Council after ascertaining the legal opinion. Therefore, the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, claim that the respondents should reimburse the service tax paid by him. This point is answered accordingly. 21. Point No. 2: It is true that in the Articles of agreement dated 20.07.2015, clause No. 3 shows that all claims above Rs. 50,000/- in value shall be decided by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction by way of a regular suit. On the strength of this term, it is argued by the respondents that the writ petition is not maintainable. I am afraid this argument has no much force for the reason that the claim of the petitioner is not for the contractual amount agreed upon by the parties. On the other hand, he claims the refund of the service tax which, in my view, cannot be termed as a contractual amount so as to drive the petitioner to the Civil Court. So the writ petition is maintainable. 22. Thus on a conspectus of facts and law, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed. No costs. 23. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.