B.B. Enterprise Represented By Its Proprieter Rina Biswas vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, B.B. Enterprise, a successful tenderer under the Burdwan Development Authority, completed a work for which final payment was made. The petitioner sought the differential amount arising from the introduction of GST in 2017. A representation dated October 3, 2023, was made to various authorities, including the Chief Executive Officer of the Burdwan Development Authority. During the hearing, it was stated that this representation had been disposed of by the Chief Executive Officer and Finance Officer of the Burdwan Development Authority, with an undated sheet submitted to the Court. It is undisputed that no hearing was provided to the petitioner before any order was passed.
Held
The Court held that the Chief Executive Officer, Burdwan Development Authority, had failed to provide a hearing to the petitioner before disposing of their representation dated October 3, 2023. This procedural lapse violated the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court directed the Chief Executive Officer, Burdwan Development Authority, to reconsider the petitioner's representation. This reconsideration must include providing the petitioner with a hearing after adequate prior notice. The hearing is to be conducted within three weeks from the date of the order, positively by November 30, 2025. Following the hearing, a reasoned order must be passed within two weeks thereafter and duly communicated to the petitioner. The Court expressly left undecided any substantive claim regarding the differential GST amount, focusing solely on the procedural defect.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Chief Executive Officer, Burdwan Development Authority, acted correctly in disposing of the petitioner's representation without providing a hearing to the petitioner, as required by principles of natural justice, concerning the differential GST amount claimed. The petitioner argued that the disposal of their representation without a hearing violated natural justice. The State and respondent no. 4 did not record any specific arguments on this point, but the Court's direction implies a procedural flaw in the initial disposal. The issue hinges on the procedural fairness in the administrative decision-making process concerning the petitioner's claim for differential GST amounts.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025 79 as WPA 1648 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 Dutta Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee Mr. Saptak Sanyal ….. for the State
Mr. Falguni Majhi ….. for the respondent no. 4
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 respondent no. 4 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.