B.B. Enterprise Represented By Its Proprieter Rina Biswas vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, B.B. Enterprise, is a successful tenderer who completed work awarded by the Director General, National Rural Infrastructure Development Agency (NRIDA). The petitioner received full payment for the completed work. The dispute arises from a differential amount claimed by the petitioner due to the introduction of GST in 2017. The petitioner submitted a representation on October 3, 2023, seeking consideration of this differential amount, which remained unaddressed. The writ petition was filed before the High Court challenging the inaction of the respondent authorities.
Held
The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim for the differential GST amount. Instead, the Court directed Respondent No. 4, the General Manager of the National Building Construction Corporation (India) Limited, to consider the petitioner's representation dated October 3, 2023. This consideration must be done within three weeks from the date of the order, specifically by November 30, 2025. The respondent is also mandated to provide a hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order on the representation within two weeks thereafter. The reasoned order must be communicated to the petitioner. The Court explicitly left the substantive claim undecided, focusing solely on procedural relief.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim the differential amount arising from the promulgation of GST post-completion of work, and if so, what is the legal basis for such a claim? (Question of law). The petitioner argued that they are entitled to the differential amount due to the GST implementation, which impacted the cost of the completed work. They had made a representation to the respondent authorities seeking resolution. The State and respondent no. 4 (General Manager, National Building Construction Corporation (India) Limited) did not explicitly record arguments on this point in the judgment. The judgment focuses on directing the consideration of the representation.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025 80 as WPA 1649 of 2025
B. B. Enterprise Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Sattwik Bhattacharyya Mr. Aashutosh Bhattacharyya Ms. Titas Niyogi Mr. Aritra Roy ..…. for the petitioner
Mr. Swapan Kumar Datta, learned G.P. Mr. Niloptal Chatterjee Mr. Debraj Sahu .….. for the State
Mr. Pradip Mukherjee Mr. Tarun Chatterjee Mr. Raju Mondal Mr. P. Biswas Mr. Surajit Basu …… for the respondent no. 4
Let affidavit-of-service as filed in Court be kept on record.
The petitioner, a successful tenderer, under the Director General, National Rural Infrastructure Development Agency (in short NRIDA) has completed the work given to him under the tender. Upon completion of the work, payment has been made and duly received by the petitioner.
The petitioner claims the differential amount, that has arisen upon promulgamation of the GST, sometime in the year, 2017. For such purpose,
2 the petitioner had also made a representation on 3rd October, 2023 which is yet to be considered.
Respondent no. 4, the General Manager, National Building Construction Corporation (India) Limited, is directed to consider such representation within a period of three weeks from date, positively by November 30, 2025, upon given a hearing to the petitioner and a reasoned order be passed on the representation within a period of two weeks thereafter which shall be duly communicated to the petitioner.
The instant writ petition is, thus, disposed of with the aforestated directions.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 7.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertaking.
(Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, 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.