R.B. Construction vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The writ petitioner, R.B. Construction, is aggrieved by the non-consideration of its representation dated October 3, 2023, pending before respondent no. 4, the National Buildings Construction Corporation (I) Limited. The petitioner claims entitlement to additional payment on account of Goods and Services Tax (GST) which has not been paid. Respondent no. 4 contends that as per the agreement dated April 11, 2018, GST was solely the writ petitioner's burden and their claim lacks basis. The petitioner had approached respondent no. 4 with a representation in October 2023, which remained undecided.
Held
The Court held that since the writ petitioner had already approached respondent no. 4 with a representation on October 3, 2023, and it remained undisposed of, the issue of entitlement to the GST claim should be decided by respondent no. 4 in the first instance. Respondent no. 4 was directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation strictly in accordance with law and the contract governing the parties within six weeks of the order's communication. An opportunity of hearing was to be given to the petitioner. Respondent no. 4 was also directed to pass a reasoned order and communicate it to the petitioner within a week of passing it. The Court explicitly stated that it had not gone into the merits of the case, leaving all points open for decision by respondent no. 4.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petitioner is entitled to additional payment on account of Goods and Services Tax (GST) under the agreement dated April 11, 2018, and applicable law. The petitioner argued that they are entitled to additional payment for GST. The revenue (represented by respondent no. 4) argued that the agreement dated April 11, 2018, clearly stipulated that GST was the writ petitioner's sole burden and therefore, their claim for additional payment on account of GST lacks any basis. The judgment does not explicitly mention any specific provisions of the GST Act or any precedents relied upon by either party.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
D/L Item No. 22 02.09.2025 KOLE 266306
WPA 1792 of 2025
R.B. Construction -Vs.- The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Aritra Roy, ….. for the petitioner.
Mr. Tarun Chatterjee, Mr. Pratip Mukherjee, Mr. Raju Mondal, ... for the respondent no.
Affidavit of service filed in court today be kept with the records. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the non- consideration of the writ petitioner’s representation dated October 3, 2023, pending before the respondent no.
The writ petitioner complains that despite the writ petitioner’s entitlement to additional payment on account of Goods and Services Tax (hereafter “GST”), the petitioner has not been paid the same. Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 4 submits that in terms of the agreement dated April 11, 2018, entered into by and between the National Buildings Construction Corporation (I) Limited and the writ petitioner, GST was the writ petitioner’s burden and it was solely to be borne to the writ petitioner only. It is submitted that the writ petitioner’s claim to any amount on account of GST lacks basis.
2 Since the writ petitioner has already approached the respondent no. 4 by way of a representation as far back as on October 3, 2023 and the same has still not been disposed of, this Court is of the view that the issue as to whether the writ petitioner is entitled to its claim on account of GST or not should at the first instance be decided by the respondent no. 4 itself. The respondent no. 4 is, therefore, directed to consider and dispose of the writ petitioner’s representation dated October 3, 2023 (annexure P1 at pages 26 to 27 of the writ petition) strictly in accordance with law and the contract governing the parties within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner or its representatives. Needless to mention that the respondent no. 4 shall dispose of the said writ petition by passing a reasoned order, within the aforesaid period, strictly in accordance with law and shall communicate the same to the writ petitioner within a week from the date of passing thereof. It is clarified that this court has not gone into the merits of the case and all points are left open to be urged by the writ petitioner and be decided by the respondent no. 4 strictly in accordance with law and in the light of the contract governing the parties. WPA 1792 of 2025 is, accordingly, disposed of. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties after completion of all necessary formalities. (Om Narayan Rai, 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.