Indo Nabin Projects Limited And Anr vs. The Superintending Engineer, Health Electrical Circle, Pwd And Govt. Of Wb And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
Indo Nabin Projects Limited & Anr (petitioners) were awarded work orders in 2015-2016 by the Superintending Engineer, Health Electrical Circle, PWD, Govt. of West Bengal (respondent no. 1) for supply, installation, testing, and commissioning of sub-stations at SSKM Hospital and Medical College & Hospital, Kolkata. The petitioners claim entitlement to a differential amount of GST at 6% due to a change in the tax rate structure effective from July 18, 2022, for the period 2022-2023. They made several representations, the last on November 28, 2024. The respondents rejected this claim via a one-line order dated December 5, 2025. Subsequently, respondent no. 4 sought recovery of differential GST amounts, which the petitioner paid via DRC 03 on March 11, 2024.
Held
The Court directed respondent no. 7 to consider the petitioners' representations dated February 23, 2024, May 8, 2024, September 23, 2024, and November 28, 2024. This consideration must be done after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and by passing a reasoned order. The decision is to be taken within six weeks from the date of communication of this order. The Court did not decide on the merits of the claim for differential GST amount but rather remanded the matter for reconsideration of the representations.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to reimbursement of the differential GST amount of 6% due to a change in the tax rate structure with effect from July 18, 2022, for the period 2022-2023, and if so, whether the respondents are obligated to disburse this amount. (Question of law) The petitioners argued that they are entitled to the differential GST amount. They relied on their representations made to the respondents. The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding their stance on the entitlement to the differential GST amount, other than having issued a rejection order.
Sections Cited
DRC 03
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Memo No. 239 dated 02.02.2016 and Work Order having Memo No. 1688 dated 15.12.2015 for supply >Installation, Testing & Commissioning of 3316 1< V sub-station at the Compound of SSKM Hospital, Kolkata and Letter of Acceptance No.
2 20/T of 2015-16 dated 29.01.2016 and Work Order vide Memo No. 1678 dated 14.12.2015 for supply> Installation, Testing and Commissioning of 3316 KV sub-station at the Compound of Medical College & Hospital, Kolkata were issued by the Superintending Engineer, Health Electrical Circle, PWD, being the respondent no. 1. 3. The petitioners claim that the petitioner no.1 is entitled to differential amount of the rate of GST from the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and also claim to have made several representations from time to time, last of which was made on 28th November, 2024 forming annexure P-13 to the present writ petition. It is the petitioner’s case that notwithstanding receipt of such representations, the concerned respondents rejected the claim by a one line order dated 05th December, 2025 being annexure p-14 to the writ petition. In the interregnum, the respondent no. 4 has sought recovery of the differential GST amounts vide notice dated 09.02.2024 which has been paid by the petitioner vide DRC 03 dated 11.03.2024. 4. Mr. Smarajit Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate appears on behalf of the respondents.
Having heard the learned advocates representing the respective parties, I am of the view that for the time being, the concerned respondents may be
3 directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 28th November, 2024 so that the views of the respondent no. 7 can be considered.
Having regard thereto, I direct the respondent nos. 7 to consider the petitioners’ representations dated 23.02.2024, 08.05.2024, 23.09.2024 and 28.11.2024 upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and by passing a reasoned order. Such decision must the taken within 6 weeks from the date of communication of this order.
With the above, directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.
(Smita Das De, 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.