Pinki Construction & Anr. Vs Superintending Engineer (Calcutta High Court)
Calcutta High Court has directed the Superintending Engineer of the Public Works Department, West Bengal, to revisit a claim for Goods and Services Tax (GST) reimbursement by Pinki Construction & Anr., a partnership firm registered under the CGST Act and WBGST Act. The petitioner sought a mandamus for the remittance of GST paid on Works Contract Services provided after July 1, 2017. The core of Pinki Construction’s argument was that the respondent authorities had misapplied a notification, specifically Paragraph 3(iv) of Notification No. 5050-F(Y) dated August 16, 2017, which, according to the petitioner, is confined to pre-GST contracts. The firm contended that contracts executed after July 1, 2017, are instead governed by Paragraph 4 of the same notification, which envisages that “GST rates will be applicable” for post-GST contracts or ongoing projects where estimates were approved before July 1, 2017. The petitioner asserted that the denial of GST reimbursement was arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection.
During the proceedings, the learned advocate for Pinki Construction relied on a judgment by the Calcutta High Court in Sushil Kumar Thard v. National Jute Manufactures Corporation Limited. & Ors. (WPA 4751 of 2023), which was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court in National Jute Manufactures Corporation Limited v. Sushil Kumar Thard SLP(C) 25436 of 2023. This precedent established that even in contractual matters, the State and its instrumentalities are obligated to act fairly, reasonably, and non-arbitrarily. The counsel for the State was unable to contradict the submissions made by the petitioners regarding the applicability of the notification.
