^®
TaxReply India Private Limited

GST Library

Best GST Library

Subscription Plans

TaxGPT

GST News | Updates

GST Calendar

GST Case Laws

GST Case Laws Sitemap

GST Notifications, Circulars, Releases etc.

Act & Rules

Act & Rules (Multi-view)

GST Rates

HSN Codes

GST Forms

My Favourites ^New

GST Diary

GST Notebook

GST Staff Manager ^New

GST Fees Manager

GST Council Meetings

GST Set-off Calculator

ITC Reversal Calculator

E-invoice Calculator

Inverted Duty Calculator

GSTR-3B Manual

GSTR-9 Manual

GSTR-9C Manual

Full Site Search

E-way Bill

Finance Bill

GST e-books

TaxReply Support

YouTube Videos

Twitter

Buy Premium Tax Domains

About Us

Our Services

🔒

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd

🔒

^®

Subscribe Free GST updates on...

Subscribe to Best GST Library of India and get ahead of the rest. Click here for plans. | GST Act & Rules e-book Click here. |

DIPAK SARKAR vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS
(Calcutta High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR

Pet. Counsel

Himangshu Kr. Ray

Abhilsh Mittal

Res. Counsel

Subir Kr. Saha

Pretom Das

Petitioner / Applicant	DIPAK SARKAR
Respondent	STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS
Court	Calcutta High Court
State	West Bengal
Date	Sep 15, 2023
Order No.	WPA/2127/2023
Citation	2023(9) TAXREPLY 8058
Original Order
My Favorites	Add to Fav ☆ Add to favorites.

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

Listen this case in simple words

Audio Timeline

Audio Speed:

AA |

ORDER
ORDER The writ petition is directed against an appellate order passed under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Briefly, the petitioner is a contractor executing works for the State Government. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Notification dated 16th August, 2017 does not deal with payments made in the post GST regime in respect of contracts or outgoing projects where estimates had been approved before 1st July, 2017, i.e., those work orders which were given prior to GST regime but have been executed after GST regime. The petitioner also complains of the violation of the principles of natural justice and submits that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. On these grounds, the petitioner assails the impugned order. On behalf of the respondent authorities, it is submitted that it would be evident from the impugned order that the subject agreement was executed on 20th August, 2018 by the Superintending Engineer P.W.D. ....