B.B. Enterprise Represented By Its Proprietor 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 WBSRDA (respondent no. 4). Upon completion, the petitioner received full payment. The petitioner seeks the differential amount arising from the implementation of GST in 2017. To address this, the petitioner submitted a representation on October 3, 2023, which remained unconsidered. This writ petition was filed challenging the inaction on the representation.
Held
The Court directed respondent no. 4 (WBSRDA) to consider the petitioner's representation dated October 3, 2023, within three weeks from the date of the order, positively by November 30, 2025. This consideration must include providing a hearing to the petitioner. Following the hearing, respondent no. 4 is to pass a reasoned order on the representation within two weeks thereafter and communicate it to the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim for the differential GST amount, as the matter was remitted for consideration by the concerned authority.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim the differential amount arising from the promulgation of GST in 2017, considering the work was completed and payment received prior to or during the GST regime? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argues that they are entitled to the differential amount due to the introduction of GST, implying that the original contract or payment mechanism did not account for this new tax. They have made a representation to the relevant authority seeking consideration of this claim. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions from the State or its authorities regarding the petitioner's claim for the differential GST amount. The focus of the court's order is on directing the consideration of the petitioner's representation.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025 75 as WPA 1638 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. Dipanjan Datta ….. for the State
Let affidavit-of-service as filed in Court be kept on record.
The petitioner, a successful tenderer, under the WBSRDA (respondent no. 4 herein), has completed the work given to him under a 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, the petitioner had also made a representation on 3rd October, 2023 which is yet to be considered.
Respondent no. 4 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
2 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.