Rana Engineering Co. INDIA Private Limited And Anr vs. The Executive Engineer, Kangsabati Canal Division No.1 And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Rana Engineering Co. India Private Limited, claims to be the successor of Rana Engineering Co. The latter was awarded a work order by the Governor to the State of West Bengal on June 26, 2018. The petitioners contend that the original rates quoted by Rana Engineering Co. did not include GST, as the quotations predated the enactment of the Goods and Services Tax Act. Payment certificates show VAT paid on invoices before July 1, 2017, and nil VAT on invoices post-July 2017. The petitioner seeks a direction for the Executive Engineer, Kangsabati Canal Division No.1, to pay the GST amount due to the petitioner, in addition to the work value. Despite several representations made to the Executive Engineer, PWD, no action has been taken.
Held
The Court noted that the petitioners had made several representations, including one dated July 24, 2025, to which no decision had been taken. Without delving into the issue of the petitioner no.1's eligibility to claim the GST benefit as the successor of Rana Engineering Co., the Court deemed it prudent to allow the petitioner to make an appropriate application before respondent no.3. If such an application is filed, respondent no.3 is directed to decide the matter within six months from the date of filing, after providing the petitioners an opportunity of hearing. All points raised in the petition have been kept open for consideration by respondent no.3. The Court did not decide on the substantive claim of GST reimbursement but directed a procedural step for its adjudication.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner no.1, as the alleged successor of Rana Engineering Co., is entitled to claim the benefit of GST paid by the erstwhile entity, considering the work order was awarded prior to the GST regime? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning contract law and GST provisions). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argues that since the original contract rates were quoted before the introduction of GST, the GST amount paid should be reimbursed. They rely on payment certificates to demonstrate the shift from VAT to nil VAT post-July 2017, implying the GST liability was borne by them. They also assert their status as the successor of Rana Engineering Co., supported by a notarized takeover agreement. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the State or its authorities regarding the petitioner's eligibility or the merits of the GST claim.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned as being discussed or interpreted, only the general context of GST is present.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
20 17.09.2025 sb
Ct.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION APPELLATE SIDE Rana Engineering Co. India Private Limited & Anr. Versus The Executive Engineer, Kangsabati Canal Division No.1 & Ors.
Mr. Ankit Kanodia
Ms. Megha Agarwal
Mr. Piyush Khaitan
Ms. Tulika Roy
… For the petitioners.
Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty
Mr. Saptak Sanyal
… For the State.
The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the Executive Engineer, Kangsabati Canal Division No.1, being the respondent no.1 to make payment of GST payable to the petitioner no.1 in addition to the value of works in respect of the work order dated 26th June, 2018. 2. It is the petitioners’ case that the business of the petitioner no.1 was previously operated under the name and style of Rana Engineering Co., and subsequently in April, 2020 the said entity was merged with and was succeeded by Rana Engineering Co. India Private Limited, the petitioner no.1 herein.
The petitioners’ case further proceeds on the premise that the petitioner no.1 had taken over all the assets and liabilities of Rana Engineering Co. In support thereof a notarized take over agreement dated 31st March, 2020 has been disclosed. No other document to establish that the petitioner no.1 has taken over assets and the interest of the erstwhile Rana Engineering Co. has been disclosed.
Records reveal that contract awarded by the Governor to the State of West Bengal was in favour of M/s Rana Engineering Co. It is the said Rana Engineering Co. which had carried out the entirety of the contract. According to the petitioners, the said Rana Engineering Co. had at the relevant point of time quoted rates which obviously did not include the Goods and Services Tax (GST) as the quotations were given prior to the enactment of the Goods and Services Tax Act.
Mr. Kanodia, learned advocate appearing in support of the writ petition has drawn attention of this Court to the payment certificates to demonstrate that in respect of the invoices which had been raised prior to 1st July, 2017, VAT had been paid, however, in respect of the invoices post July, 2017 the certificate would demonstrate payment of VAT is nil. According to him, the petitioner no.1 is the successor of the said Rana Engineering Co. and is entitled to the benefit of the GST which has been paid by the said Rana Engineering Co. According to Mr. Kanodia, notwithstanding from time to time several representations had been made by the petitioners before the Executive Engineer PWD with a request to reimburse the GST, no step has been taken by the said respondents.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting that the petitioners had made several representations, inter alia, including the representation dated 24th July, 2025 and noting that no decision has been taken on the basis thereof, I am of the view that at this stage without going into the issue of eligibility of the petitioner no.1 to claim the benefit on account of Rana Engineering Co. it shall be prudent to permit the petitioner to make an appropriate application before the respondent no.3. 7. If such application is made, the respondent no.3 shall be at liberty to take a decision in that regard upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within a period of six months from the date of filing of such application.
All points are kept open.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for be given to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, 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.