Uttarakhand High Court
M/S Sterlite Electric Ltd vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 12 March, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No.578 of 2026
M/s Sterlite Electric Ltd. ............Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ..........Respondents
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Akash Chandra, learned counsel holding
brief of Mr. Rohit Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Tarun Lakhera, learned B.H. for the
State/respondent nos.1, 2, 3 and 5.
3. Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia and Mr. Rahul Consul,
learned counsel for the respondent no.4.
4. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner-Factory
has put to challenge the Assessment Order dated
12.12.2025, annexure no.2 to the writ petition, whereby
the cess and penalty under the provision of the Building
and other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1996,
(Act No.28 of 1996) have been imposed and recovery
proceedings have been initiated pursuant thereto vide
recovery certificate dated 24.02.2026, annexure no.4 to
the writ petition.
5. The main ground on which the orders impugned
have been challenged is that the petitioner is a factory
and does not fall within the definition of “Building or other
construction work” as defined under Section 2(d) of the
Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of
Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996.
6. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner-Factory
2
elaborated his argument stating there that the cess can be
levied only on the building or other construction work in
view of the provision of Section 3 of the Act No.28 of 1996.
7. Since the petitioner does not fall within the definition
of “building or other construction work”, therefore, the
cess cannot be assessed upon the petitioner.
8. He further submits that in the notice itself it has
been stated by respondent no.4 that the construction
work was done by the petitioner-Factory in the year 2018
and for which notice was sent only in the year 2025.
9. It is contended by learned Senior Advocate for the
petitioner-Factory that such a proceeding cannot be
initiated against the petitioner-Factory at this belated
stage after expiry of more than almost seven years of
construction allegedly raised by the petitioner-Factory.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that the order impugned in the present writ
petition is appealable under the provisions of Section 11
of the Act No.28 of 1996.
11. To this, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner-
Factory vehemently submits that the very imposition of
cess is beyond jurisdiction and quite illegal, therefore, the
alternate ground of remedy of appeal would not come in
way of the petitioner-Factory for filing the present writ
petition.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the relevant provisions as referred by
learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, this Court is of
the view that the submission made by learned Senior
3
Advocate has some substance which can be deliberated in
detail after calling the counter affidavit from the
respondent(s).
13. Counsel for the respondent(s) may file their counter
affidavit(s) within six weeks.
14. List this case on 04.05.2026.
15. In the meantime, the recovery proceedings of cess
and penalty shall remain stayed, provided the petitioner-
Factory deposits a sum of ₹25,00,000/- before this Court
in the Registry within a period of 15 days from today.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
12.03.2026
SK