$~18 and 19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11340/2009 and CM APPL. 10930/2009 HAPPY ELECTRICALS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. S. S. Sastry, Mr. Naveen, Mr. Brijesh Tiwari and Mr. Umesh Kumar, Advs. versus CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT .....Respondent Through: Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Mukesh Kumar Pandey, Mr. Dashmesh Tripathi and Mr. Swan Kumar Shukla, Advs. (19) + W.P.(C) 2472/2010 and CM APPL. 4937/2010 VARUNS ASSOCIATES .....Petitioner Through: Mr. S. S. Sastry, Mr. Naveen, Mr. Brijesh Tiwari and Mr. Umesh Kumar, Advs. versus CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT .....Respondent Through: Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Mukesh Kumar Pandey, Mr. Dashmesh Tripathi and Mr. Swan Kumar Shukla, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN O R D E R % 08.07.2026 1. The Petitioners herein are an Electrical Contractor, who are stated to be working for Central Public Works Department (CPWD). This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2026 at 11:43:47 2. Through the present both Writ Petitions, the Petitioners pray for the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ thereby directing the Respondent to make the incidence of service tax on the Petitioner and other like contractors (service providers), reimbursable by the Respondent (service receivers) with effect from the date when the incidence thereof had commenced, i.e., with effect from 01-07-2003, in respect of works executed by the contractor against the tenders floated by the Respondent; ii) Issue of a writ-in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate nature thereby directing the Respondent to formulate guidelines for reimbursement of the service tax liability of the contractors (service providers), subject to furnishing of the proof of deposit of the service tax by the contractor to the Service Tax Department, without insisting on the payment of the service tax "on demand' as contained in the impugned Notification dated 28.01.2009.” 3. The Respondent has filed a Reply to the present Writ Petition contesting the liability. It is claimed by the Respondent that as per clause 38 of the CPWD Manual, 2007, the contract was awarded inclusive of all taxes. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled to service tax w.e.f. 01.07.2003. 4. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that on 28.01.2009, it went through an amendment and thenceforth, the service tax is separately payable. Moreover, as per the agreement, the dispute between the parties can be resolved only through Arbitration. 5. This Court has considered the parties’ submissions. Both the present Writ Petitions were filed in the year 2009 and 2010. The Petitioners claim payment of service tax from 01.07.2003. Moreover, there is a provision for resolution of dispute by way of arbitration. The Respondent is disputing the liability. In such circumstances, a question of fact is required to be adjudicated based on relevant evidence. Thus, the Petitioner, if so advised, may avail the appropriate This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2026 at 11:43:47 remedy in accordance with law. 6. Keeping in view the observations above, both the present Writ Petitions, along with the pending applications, are disposed of. 7. A photocopy of the Order passed today be kept in the connected matters. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. SHAIL JAIN, J. JULY 08, 2026/sp/kb This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2026 at 11:43:47