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 for the Burdwan Development Authority and received final payment. The petitioner sought to claim a differential amount arising from the introduction of GST in 2017. A representation was made on October 3, 2023, to various authorities, including the Chief Executive Officer of the Burdwan Development Authority. During the hearing, it was indicated that this representation had been disposed of by the Chief Executive Officer and Finance Officer of the Burdwan Development Authority, with an undated consideration sheet submitted to the Court. It is undisputed that the petitioner was not given a hearing before any order was passed.
Held
The Court held that it is not in dispute that the petitioner was not given a hearing at the relevant point of time before any order was passed concerning their representation. Consequently, the Chief Executive Officer of the Burdwan Development Authority is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated October 3, 2023, after providing the petitioner with a hearing. Adequate prior notice must be given for this hearing. The hearing is to be conducted within three weeks from the date of the order, positively by November 30, 2025. A reasoned order must then be passed within two weeks thereafter and communicated to the petitioner. The Court did not decide on the substantive claim for the differential GST amount, but rather focused on the procedural defect of not affording a hearing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim the differential amount arising from the promulgation of GST, considering the work was completed and final payment made prior to the GST regime. The petitioner argued that they are entitled to the differential amount due to the GST implementation. The State and respondents did not explicitly record arguments on this point in the judgment. However, the Court's direction to reconsider the representation implies that the entitlement to the differential amount is not definitively settled and requires further examination. The core issue revolves around the procedural fairness in disposing of the petitioner's claim for the GST differential amount.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025 77 as WPA 1641 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. Samrat Sen Mr. Niloptpal Chatterjee Mr. Amrita Lal Chatterjee ….. for the State
Mr. Falguni Majhi ….. for the respondents No. 4,5 & 6
Let affidavit-of-service as filed in Court be kept on record.
The petitioner, a successful tenderer, under the Burdwan Development Authority, has completed the work and final payment in this respect has also been made.
These facts are not in dispute.
The petitioner claims the differential amount, that has arisen upon promulgamation of the GST, sometime in the year, 2017. For such purpose, the petitioner had also made a representation on 3rd October, 2023 to various persons including the Chief Executive Officer of Burdwan Development Authority.
2
During the course of hearing, I was informed by Mr. Majhi, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents no. 4,5 & 6 that such representation had been disposed of by the Chief Executive Officer and Finance Officer of the Burdwan Development Authority for which purpose a sheet was handed over to this Court. The said consideration is undated.
However, it is not in dispute that no hearing was given to the petitioner at the relevant point of time before passing any order. The Chief Executive Officer, Burdwan Development Authority, is directed to consider the representation of 3rd October, 2023, upon given a hearing to the petitioner with adequate prior notice. Let the hearing be conducted within a period of three weeks from date, positively by November 30, 2025, and a reasoned order be passed 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. 9.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.