Pinki Construction & Anr. Vs Additional District Magistrate (ZP) &Additional Executive Officer (Calcutta High Court)
Calcutta High Court has instructed the Additional District Magistrate (Zilla Parishad) and Additional Executive Officer to re-evaluate their decision concerning the Goods and Services Tax (GST) reimbursement sought by M/s Pinki Construction & Anr. for works contract services. The petitioner, a partnership firm registered under the CGST Act and WBGST Act, had initiated legal proceedings to compel the respondents to remit GST amounts paid on services rendered from July 1, 2017, onwards. The central issue of the dispute revolved around the interpretation and application of Notification No. 5050-F(Y) dated August 16, 2017, specifically whether Paragraph 3(iv), pertaining to pre-GST contracts, was being incorrectly applied to deny reimbursement for contracts executed after the GST implementation date.
Pinki Construction contended that the authorities had misunderstood the notification’s scope. The firm argued that Paragraph 3(iv) applies exclusively to contracts signed before the GST regime, while Paragraph 4 of the same notification explicitly governs “post-GST contracts or ongoing project where estimates have been approved before 1st of July 2017.” For these latter contracts, the petitioner asserted that GST rates are applicable, requiring suppliers to pay WBGST and CGST on all taxable goods and services. Consequently, the firm claimed that the denial of GST reimbursement was arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner cited the Calcutta High Court’s ruling in Sushil Kumar Thard v. National Jute Manufactures Corporation Limited. & Ors. (later affirmed by the Supreme Court), which affirmed that state entities must act fairly and non-arbitrarily in contractual matters. The State’s counsel did not contest these arguments during the proceedings.
