Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2026:RJ-JP:6749-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11294/2018 M/s. Shree Ganpati Construction Through Its Proprietor Shri Sharwan Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Bakhtawar, Resident Of Plot No. 1, Manoharpura, Jagatpura, Jaipur Raj. ----Petitioner Versus
1. Union Of India Through Chief Commissioner Of Cgst, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur Raj.
2. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Through Its Manager Projects, Saras Sankul, Jln Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur Raj.
3. General Manager, Dpm And Projects Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd., Saras Sankul, Jln Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur Raj. ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19073/2018 M/s. Bansal Construction Co., Through Its Proprietor Shri Subhash Bansal S/o. Shri Pooran Chand Bansal, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of 2/07, Jawahar Nagar, HB Colony, Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Chief Commissioner Of Cgst, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd., Through Its Manager (Projects) Saras Sankul, Jln Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. General Manager, Dpm And Projects, Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Saras Sankul, Jln Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents
[2026:RJ-JP:6749-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-11294/2018] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Daksh Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kinshuk Jain, Sr. Counsel Mr. Kapil Sharma with Mr. Divyanshu Charan Ms. Kalpana for Ms. Anita Aggarwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA
Order 12/02/2026
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-
“a) to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction to set aside, quash and drop the impugned ex-parte recovery
order 18/52612-14 DATED NO.RCDF/PROJ./C-4034- 11/2017-16.3.2018 AND ORDER NO.RCDF/PROJ./C- 4034-11/2017-18/52603-05 DATED 16.03.2018 and subsequent consequential proceedings for recovery of dues against the outstanding bills and security deposit. b) to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction to direct the respondents to release the payment towards the work order and release the security deposit as the work has been successfully performed. (c) to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction for awarding appropriate interest and cost towards the illegal retention and harassment cause to the petitioner as deem fit by the Hon'ble Court.
[2026:RJ-JP:6749-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-11294/2018] d) pass any such other order or orders as may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case in the favour of the petitioner.”
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have no right to issue the recovery order dated
16.03.2018. Learned counsel submits that in view of Section 68 of the Finance Act of 1994 the respondents cannot make any recovery because the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not covered under the definition of business entity registered as ‘corporate body’ and the same has been registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
3.
Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 opposed the
submissions and submitted that as per Clause 36C of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent Nos.2 and 3, the petitioner is liable to pay sale tax and other taxes.
4. Admittedly, the contract was awarded to the petitioner for construction of building, etc. and the respondents issued notice to pay the service tax, which they have been entitled to collect from the petitioner in view of Clause 36C of the agreement.
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recovery has been made without issuance of the show-cause notice. In our considered view issuance of show-cause notice is not required when there is a specific Clause in the agreement for payment of service tax by the petitioner.
[2026:RJ-JP:6749-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-11294/2018]
6. Since, the petitioner has signed the contract-agreement with his open eyes, no case is made out for interference. Hence, these writ petitions are dismissed.
(RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Dushyant/63-64