Rasedul Haque vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Rasedul Haque, filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking directions against the State of West Bengal and its authorities. The core issue pertains to government contracts, both awarded before and after the introduction of GST on July 1, 2017. The petitioner argued that the Schedule of Rates (SOR) and Bill of Quantities (BOQ) for these contracts were not updated to incorporate the applicable GST, leading to an unforeseen additional tax liability for the petitioner. The petitioner sought relief to bear this additional tax burden and to neutralize the impact of GST on ongoing contracts awarded before its introduction, requesting an update of the State SOR to include GST in place of the inapplicable West Bengal VAT.

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an appropriate representation before the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal. This representation should be filed within four weeks from the date of the order. Upon receipt, the Additional Chief Secretary is directed to take a final decision within four months, after consulting with all relevant departments. The decision-making process must include an opportunity of hearing for the petitioner or their authorized representative. Crucially, no coercive action is to be taken against the petitioner until a final decision is reached. The Additional Chief Secretary is mandated to act in accordance with law, pass a reasoned and speaking order on merit, and consider all judgments of various High Courts that the petitioner intends to rely upon. The court did not decide the substantive issues raised by the petitioner but provided a procedural path for their resolution.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are liable to bear the additional tax liability arising from the execution of government contracts where the Schedule of Rates (SOR) and Bill of Quantities (BOQ) were not updated to incorporate Goods and Services Tax (GST) for contracts awarded either in the pre-GST or post-GST regime? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the failure to update the SOR and BOQ with applicable GST has resulted in an unforeseen additional tax burden on government contracts. They contended that the State should bear this additional liability and neutralize its impact on ongoing contracts awarded before July 1, 2017. The petitioner also sought the update of the State SOR to incorporate applicable GST, replacing the West Bengal VAT. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State or its representatives.