- (1.) The pleadings on record as canvassed by the parties suggest that engagement of this petitioner was done for execution of exploration work in one Banhardi Coal Block after its reallocation to the respondent - Jharkhand State Electricity Board on 28.2.2013. The very nature of work was required to be executed through the aegis of Mines and Geology Department, which had the panel approved in 2010, life of which was to expire in November, 2013. The correspondences undertaken between the Mines and Geology Department and the Electricity Company dated 6.3.2013, letter no. 2286 dated 8.3.2013 addressed to the empaneled agency, the letter of the Directorate bearing no. 79 dated 12.4.2013 to the J.S.E.B for consent, the consent letter of J.S.E.B bearing memo no. 17 dated 18.4.2013, issuance of work order to the petitioner dated 9.4.2013 and the subsequent letter no. 152 dated 3.5.2013 also in relation to issuance of work order to the petitioner are furnished in the reply submitted by the Mines and Geology Department to the Office of Accountant General, Jharkhand on the audit objection made as is apparent from Annexure -H dated 24.8.2015 bearing memo no. 921 to the counter affidavit of the respondent no. 4 to 6.
(2.) The issue in controversy as per the submission of the rival parties is in relation to payment of a sum of Rs. 1 crore 43 laks and odd alleged to be in excess to the agreed L1 rate excluding service tax component of 12.36% on execution of the work by the petitioner, in respect of which certificate had also been issued by the Director, Geology on 3.12.2014 itself. Relying upon letters dated 8.3.2013(Annexure -2) bearing memo no. 2286 of the Deputy Director, Geology, the offer made by the petitioner vide Annexure -3 dated 18.3.2013, the letter dated 12.4.2013 bearing letter no. Bhu.Ni.Anve.21/2012 79 (Annexure -4) addressed to the Member (Generation), J.S.E.B by the Director, Geology and acceptance letter dated 18.4.2013 bearing no. 17 of the Member( Generation), J.S.E.B to the Director, Geology, petitioner has tried to make out a case that it offered to accept the execution of the work at L1 rate along with service tax to the tune of 12.36% due to steep escalation of various components of the work, which was duly accepted leading to the issuance of work order in favour of the petitioner vide Annexure -6 dated 3.5.2013. Petitioner claims to have been paid almost 95% of the payments on the bills raised, which were inclusive of 12.36% service tax over and above L1 rates approved at the time of preparation of panel in 2010 by the Mine and Geology Department. Petitioner also claims to have deposited the entire service tax component with the Ministry of Excise and Service Tax. Still by the impugned communication at Annexure -11 bearing letter no. 203 dated 23.12.2015, it has been asked to make good the loss of Rs.1,43,30,321/ - plus interest amount of Rs.29.29 lakh calculated at 12% from the date of payment on account of the excess payment made to the petitioner at the L1 rate which were inclusive of service tax valid for 3 years from the date of preparation of panel i.e. November, 2013.
(3.) The relevant facts brought on record vide Annexure -H, referred to hereinabove and as pleaded by the petitioner also lead to the impression that after exchange of correspondences and acceptance of terms and conditions by the respondent - Board through letter dated 18.4.2013(Annexure -5) and also execution of 100% of the work, this controversy has risen due to audit objection.;