S.S.T. Engineering vs. The State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, S.S.T. Engineering, filed a writ petition against the State of West Bengal and the Purulia Municipality. The petitioner sought a direction to prevent the imposition or demand of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the first R.A. Bill raised in connection with a contract dated March 14, 2024. The petitioner contended that the Bill of Quantity (BOQ) rates were calculated without including GST, and therefore, the Municipality should not deduct GST from their bill. The Municipality, however, insisted on the petitioner clearing the GST before processing the bill and demanded a pre-deposit of GST, which the petitioner argued was impermissible.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner cannot evade the liability to pay GST as the nature of the job is not exempted under the provisions of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017. The Court referred to Sections 12 and 13 of the Act, which specify the time of supply of goods and services, and stated that the liability to pay tax arises at that time. It also mentioned Section 31(4) and (5) of the Act, noting that while the obligation to file returns lies with the petitioner, the municipality cannot evade GST payment if it is included in the invoices. The Court explicitly stated it had not gone into the issue of whether the contract was a fixed-rate contract or if the tax component was required to be factored into payment terms, leaving this for the parties to decide as per their contractual terms. Therefore, no relief was granted to the petitioner beyond these observations.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner can be made liable to pay GST on the first R.A. Bill when the BOQ rates were calculated without providing for GST, and if the respondents are estopped from deducting taxes from the petitioner's bill based on the contractual terms. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that as per the contractual terms with the Chairman, Purulia Municipality, the BOQ rates were exclusive of GST. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held liable for GST at the time of bill processing, and the respondents are estopped from deducting taxes. The petitioner also contended that demanding a pre-deposit of GST is not permissible in law. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment records that the nature of the job is not exempted under the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017, implying the petitioner cannot evade GST liability. However, specific arguments from the State regarding the BOQ or estoppel are not explicitly recorded.
Sections Cited
Section 12, Section 13, Section 31, CGST/WBGST Act, 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025
sayandeep Sl. No. 03 Ct. No. 05
WPA 593 of 2025
S.S.T. Engineering Vs. The State of West Bengal & ors.
Mr. Amitava Ghosh Mr. Tapan Kumar Dey Mr. Rakesh Roy
…. for the petitioner
Mr. A. Ray
Mr. T.M. siddiqui
Mr. Tanoy chakraborty
Mr. S. Sanyal
… for the State
Mr. Sougata Mitra
Mr. Nikhil Kr. Gupta
Ms. Soma Chakraborty
Mr. Subhadeep Maitra
…..for the Purulia Municipality
The affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept on record.
The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the respondents not to impose or demand goods and service tax in respect of the first R.A. Bill raised by the petitioner in connection with the execution with the contract dated 14th March, 2024. 3. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate representing the petitioner would submit that as per the contractual terms with the Chairman, Purulia Municipality, since the BOQ rates have been calculated without providing for GST, the petitioner cannot be made liable at the
2 time of processing the petitioner’s bill by the Municipality, for GST.
Mr. Ghosh, would submit that the respondents are insisting that unless the petitioner clears the GST, the bill shall not be processed. He would further submit that the respondents are also insisting upon the petitioner to make a pre-deposit of the GST, which is not permissible in law.
Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. It would transpire that Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate has placed reliance on the bill of quantity (BOQ) forming part of LOA cum work order issued by the Chairman, Purulia Municipality to demonstrate that the figure disclosed therein is exclusive of the taxes and having regard thereto, he submits that the respondents are estopped from deducting taxes from the petitioner.
In this context, I may note that since the nature of job covered under the contract is not exempted under the provisions of CGST/WBGST Act, 2017, the petitioner cannot evade the liability to make payment of GST. However, as per Sections 12 and 13 of the said Act, the time of supply of goods and the time of supply of services has been specifically provided and it has also been indentified that the liability to pay tax on goods and services shall arise at the time of supply as determined in accordance with the provisions of
3 Sections 12 and 13 of the said Act. Having regard thereto, and having regard to the provisions contained in Section 31 of Sub-Sections (4) and (5) of Section 31 of the said Act, though the obligation to file returns is with the petitioner, however, the municipality also cannot evade liability to make payment of GST, if such GST is included in the invoices.
This Court has, however, not gone into the issue as to whether the contract is a fixed rate contract and whether the tax component is required to be factored into the payment terms itself. It is for the parties to decide the same as per the contractual terms.
Having regard thereto, I am of the view that at this stage there is no scope to grant any relief to the petitioner apart from the clarification as aforesaid being provided.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.