Government Contractors Win Partial Relief: Tax Dispute Resolution Pathway Opened with Representation Rights and Interim Protection

HC writ petition challenging tax liability on government contracts pre and post GST regime. Court granted petitioner liberty to file representation before Additional Chief Secretary, who must decide within four months after consulting relevant departments. Interim relief provided against tax recovery, requiring 20% deposit of disputed amount. Matter listed for final hearing in December 2023.

---

---

Issues involved:
The writ petition involves seeking direction for bearing additional tax liability on Government contracts pre and post GST regime, updating Schedule of Rates (SOR) with applicable GST, neutralizing impact of additional tax burden, and challenging an impugned order under the WBGST Act.

Additional Tax Liability on Government Contracts:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking direction for the respondents to bear the additional tax liability for executing Government contracts without updating the Schedule of Rates (SOR) to include applicable GST. Relief was sought for ongoing contracts awarded before the introduction of GST to neutralize the unforeseen additional tax burden. The petitioner also requested the State SOR to be updated with applicable GST for future contracts. The court disposed of the petition, granting the petitioner liberty to file a representation before the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal within four weeks. The Additional Chief Secretary is required to make a final decision within four months after consulting relevant departments and considering all relevant judgments.

Challenging Impugned Order under WBGST Act:
The petitioner challenged an impugned order dated 31st May, 2023, passed by the appellate authority under the WBGST Act. While acknowledging that the order is appealable before the Tribunal, the court noted the unavailability of the said forum at present. The court decided to entertain the writ petition as the issues involved required affidavits from the respondents. The respondents were directed to file an affidavit-in-opposition within four weeks, and the petitioner was given two weeks to file a reply. No coercive steps for recovery of the tax demand were to be taken if the petitioner deposited an additional 20% of the disputed amount within ten days. Failure to make the deposit would render the interim order ineffective, allowing the respondent authority to proceed in accordance with the law. The matter was listed for final hearing in the monthly list of December, 2023, with parties instructed to prepare written notes of arguments for the hearing.

---