M/S Biswas Enterprise vs. Executive Engineer Hooghly Highway Division No 1 And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Biswas Enterprise, filed a writ petition seeking a refund of Goods and Services Tax (GST) allegedly paid erroneously. The petitioner claims to have made a representation to the concerned respondents on February 19, 2021, seeking this refund along with interest. This representation, however, remained unconsidered. The petitioner also relied on an order dated September 20, 2019, issued by the Joint Secretary, PWD department, in support of their claim. The respondents, including the Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads), West Bengal, and others, were parties to the writ petition. The amount of GST in dispute is not explicitly stated.

Held

The Court, without delving into the merits of the petitioner's representation, directed Respondent No. 7 to consider and dispose of the representation dated February 19, 2021. This disposal must be in accordance with the law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The authority is also directed to take into consideration the order dated September 20, 2019, passed by the Joint Secretary, PWD. Crucially, the petitioner or their authorized representative must be given an opportunity of hearing before a decision is made. This entire process is to be completed within eight weeks from the date of communication of the Court's order. The petitioner is entitled to raise all points mentioned in the writ petition during the hearing before the concerned authority. No specific issue was left undecided, as the court focused on the procedural aspect of considering the representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authorities are obligated to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated February 19, 2021, seeking a refund of erroneously paid GST, in accordance with law? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they had made a representation seeking a refund of GST paid erroneously and that this representation had not been considered by the authorities. They relied on an order dated September 20, 2019, issued by the Joint Secretary, PWD department, to support their claim. The petitioner sought a direction for the refund of GST with interest. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State or other respondents regarding the petitioner's claim or the representation. The Advocate General represented the State.