{"id":158520,"date":"1996-09-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-09-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cooch-behar-contractors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-others-on-11-september-1996"},"modified":"2016-07-15T16:25:07","modified_gmt":"2016-07-15T10:55:07","slug":"cooch-behar-contractors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-others-on-11-september-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cooch-behar-contractors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-others-on-11-september-1996","title":{"rendered":"Cooch Behar Contractors’ … vs State Of West Bengal And Others on 11 September, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Cooch Behar Contractors’ … vs State Of West Bengal And Others on 11 September, 1996<\/div>\n
Author: V K.<\/div>\n
Bench: Venkataswami K. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCOOCH BEHAR CONTRACTORS' ASSOCIATION & OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t11\/09\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nVENKATASWAMI K. (J)\nBENCH:\nVENKATASWAMI K. (J)\nBHARUCHA S.P. (J)\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t    WITH
\n\t       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4606 OF 1990
\nM. Banerjee and Co. & Anr
\nV
\nState  of West Bengal and others
\n\t\t\t    WITH
\n\t   CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 571-74 (NT) OF 1991
\nNepal Chandra Bengal
\nV
\nState of West Bengal & Others
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nVenkataswami,J.\n<\/p>\n
     Common questions  of law arise out of a common judgment
\nof  the\t  West\tBengal\tTaxation  Tribunal  dated  26.4.1990
\nrendered in  RN-30(T), RN-31  (T), RN-34(T),  RN-103(T), RN-
\n367(T), RN-338, RN-339 of 1989.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellants  are contractors  and they execute civil
\nconstruction  works  including\tconstruction  of  roads\t and
\nbridges under different departments of the Central and State
\nGovernments well  as  respective  corporations.\t Such  works
\ninclude excavation of earth, drilling, construction of water
\nchannel and  river bank\t protection. Such  works of contract
\nwere not  brought under the net of sales tax till the Bengal
\nfinance (Sales\tTax) Act,  1941 (hereinafter  referred to as
\n“the Act”)  was amended\t by the\t west Bengal  Act 4  of 1984
\ninserting section  6D and  amending section 2(c) of the Act.
\nThese amendments  Were pursuant to the 46th amendment of the
\nConstitution of\t India in the year 1982 inserting clause 29A
\nin Article 366.\n<\/p>\n
     The  constitutional  validity  of\tthe  46th  Amendment
\ninserting clause  29A in Article 366 was challenged and this
\nCourt in  Builders association of India and Others vs. Union
\nof  India   and\t Others\t  [1989\t (2)  SCC  645]\t upheld\t the
\nconstitutionality of the said amendment.\n<\/p>\n
     As a  result of the insertion of section 6D to the Act,
\nall transfer  of property  in goods  (whether as goods or in
\nsome other  form) involved  in\tthe  execution\tof  a  works
\ncontract was  deemed to\t be a  sale of\tthose goods  by\t the
\nperson making  the transfer  and the purchase of those goods
\nby the\tperson to  whom such  transfer was made. The revenue
\nsought to  assess the appellants under Section 6D of the Act
\nand the\t appellants aggrieved  by such assessments moved the
\nHigh Court  challenging initially  the constitutionality  of
\nsection 6D  and finally confining their challenge to certain
\nlimited aspects\t which we  shall refer\tto hereinafter.\t The
\ncases  were   originally  filed\t  in  the   High  Court\t and
\nsubsequently were  originally filed  in the  High Court\t and
\nsubsequently  were   transferred  to  West  Bengal  Taxation
\nTribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) and the
\nTribunal in  its detailed judgment repelled every one of the
\narguments  raised   on\tbehalf\t of   the   appellants\t and
\nconsequently dismissed the cases.\n<\/p>\n
     Before us\tMr. Jayant  Das, learned  Senior Counsel for
\nthe appellants\tbroadly raised\tthree points while attacking
\nthe assessments\t under section\t6D of  the  Act.  The  first
\ncontention raised by the learned counsel was that section 6D
\nunjustly discriminates in the matter of grant of declaration
\nforms to the dealers under section 6D and thereby denies the
\nadvantage gained by other dealers by using declaration forms
\nand thus  it is\t Violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
\nof India.\n<\/p>\n
     The  second  contention  put  forward  by\tthe  learned
\ncounsel was  that the  value of\t the  stores  and  materials
\nsupplied  by  the  contractee  to  the\tcontractor  for\t the
\nspecific purpose  of use  in the execution of works contract
\nshould not  be included\t in the `contractual transfer price’
\nunder Section 6D as according to the learned counsel in such
\nsupplies there\tis no  transfer of property and the property
\nalways remains\twith the  contractee. The  third  submission
\nadvanced by  the learned counsel for the appellants was that
\nthe royalty  paid by  the contractors  in the  execution  of
\nworks contract\twhile procuring\t boulders, earth etc. should
\nnot be included in the `contractual transfer price’. Another
\nminor point  raised by the learned counsel was that the cost
\nof freight and delivery for carrying goods to the works site
\nshould not  also be  included in  the `contractual  transfer
\nprice’.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. B.Sen,\t learned Senior\t Counsel in  reply submitted
\nthat none of the questions raised by the learned counsel for
\nthe appellants\tremain\tres  integra  as  they\tare  totally
\ncovered either\tby the\tdecision of  this Court\t n Builders’
\nAssociation case  (supra) or  the recent  decision  of\tthis
\nCourt in  M\/s Gannon  Dunkerley and Co. and Others vs. State
\nof Rajasthan  and others<\/a>  (1993) 1  SCC 364.  In addition to
\nthat he\t also invited  our attention  to a  decision of this
\nCourt in  the case  of State  of Madhya\t Pradesh vs.  Orient
\nPaper Mills Ltd.<\/a> (1977) 2 SCC 77 wherein this Court has held
\nthat `royalty’\tis a feudalistic euphemism for price. so far
\nas the\tcost of\t freight and delivery for carrying the goods
\nto the\tworks site is concerned, the learned counsel invited
\nour attention  to the  judgment of  the Tribunal wherein the
\nTribunal has  not finally  decided the\tissue, but  has left
\nopen the  same for  decision with  reference to the facts of
\neach case.  In view of this overall submission with which we
\nagree we  do not  feel it  necessary to deal elaborately the
\ncontentions raised before us.\n<\/p>\n
     For  appreciation\tof  the\t rival\tcontentions,  it  is
\nnecessary to  set out  sections 2(c)  and 6D  of the  Act as
\namended in the year 1984. They read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “2 (c)  `dealer’ means  any  person
\n     who  carries  on  the  business  of
\n     selling goods  in West Bengal or of
\n     Purchasing goods  in West Bengal in
\n     specified\tCircumstances\tor   any
\n     person making  a sale under section
\n     6D….”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “6D.  – Liability to payment of tax
\n     on\t the  transfer\tof  property  in
\n     goods involved  in the execution of
\n     Works contract and rate thereof.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (1)    Notwithstanding\tanything
\n     contained elsewhere in this Act. –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a) any  transfer\tof  property  in
\n     goods (Whether  as goods or in some
\n     other   form)   involved\tin   the
\n     execution\tof   a\tworks\tcontract
\n     (hereinafter   referred\tto    as
\n     contractual  transfer)   shall   be
\n     deemed to\tbe a sale of these goods
\n     by the  person making  the transfer
\n     and the  purchase of those goods by
\n     the person\t to whom such transfer s
\n     made;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)   (i)\t  every\t  dealer   whose
\n     contractual transfer  price  during
\n     the last  year ending  on or before
\n     the 31st  day of March, 1984 excess
\n     rupees two lakhs shall, in addition
\n     to the  tax payable  by  him  under
\n     section 5\tand section  6B, if any,
\n     be liable\tto pay\tfrom the 1st day
\n     of April,\t1984 a\ttax at\tthe rate
\n     specified in  sub-section\t (3)  of
\n     such  part\t  of   his   contractual
\n     transfer price as specified in sub-
\n     section (2);\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) every\t dealer,  other\t than  a
\n     dealer referred  to  in  sub-clause\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i),  Whose   contractual\ttransfer
\n     price during  any year ending on or
\n     after the\t1st day\t of April,  1984
\n     exceeds rupees  two lakhs shall, in
\n     addition to  the tax payable by him
\n     under section  5 and section 6B, if
\n     any, be liable to pay for the first
\n     day   of\tthe   year   immediately
\n     following such  year a  tax at  the
\n     rate specified  in sub-section  (3)
\n     of such  part  of\this  contractual
\n     transfer price as specified in sub-
\n     section (2);\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii) every  dealer who  has become
\n     liable to\tpay tax under sub-clause\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i)  or   sub-clause   (ii)   shall
\n     continue to  be so liable until the
\n     expiry of\tthree consecutive  years
\n     during   each    of    which    the
\n     contractual transfer price does not
\n     exceed rupees  two lakhs and on the
\n     expiry  of\t such  three  years  his
\n     liability to  pay\tsuch  tax  shall
\n     cease.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iv) every\t dealer, whose liability
\n     to pay  tax has  ceased  under  the
\n     provisions\t of   sub-clause  (iii),
\n     shall, if\tthe contractual transfer
\n     price during any year again exceeds
\n     rupees two\t lakhs, be liable to pay
\n     from the  first  day  of  the  year
\n     immediately following such year the
\n     tax at the rate of this contractual
\n     transfer price as specified in sub-
\n     section (3)  of such  part of  this
\n     contractual   transfer   price   as
\n     specified in sub-section (2);
\n     (2)  The  tax  payable  under  sub-
\n     section (1) shall be levied on that
\n     part of  contractual transfer price
\n     of a  dealer  during    any  period
\n     which  remains   after    deducting
\n     therefrom his  contractual transfer
\n     price during the period on-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a) contractual  transfer of  goods
\n     referred to in section 14 of 1956),
\n     on a  prior sale  whereof\tin  West
\n     Bengal due\t tax under  this Act  or
\n     under the\tWest  Bengal  Sales  Tax
\n     Act, 1954\t(West Bengal  Act IV  of
\n     1954), if\tsuch goods  are notified
\n     for taxation  under  that\tAct,  is
\n     shown to  the satisfaction\t of  the
\n     Commissioner to have been paid;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b) contractual  transfer of goods,
\n     sales of  which are  declared  tax-
\n     free under section 6;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c) contractual  transfer of goods,
\n     sales of which are generally exempt
\n     from tax  under subsection\t (2)  of
\n     section 5;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (d) contractual  transfer of goods,
\n     on the  purchase of  which\t tax  is
\n     payable by him under section 6c;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (e)    such    other    contractual
\n     transfers, as may be prescribed.
\n     (3)  The  tax  under  this\t section
\n     shall be levied at the rate of four
\n     per centum\t of  such  part\t of  the
\n     contractual   transfer   price   as
\n     specified in sub-section(2).
\n     Explanation 1.  – In  this section,
\n     the     expression\t    “contractual
\n     transfer price”,  used in\trelation
\n     to\t any   period,\tshall  mean  the
\n     aggregate of  the amounts\treceived
\n     or receivable  by a  dealer  during
\n     such     period\t as\tvaluable
\n     consideration for\tthe transfer  of
\n     property in goods used in execution
\n     of a Works contract, Whether or not
\n     the amount\t receivable as\tvaluable
\n     consideration for\tsuch transfer is
\n     separately\t shown\t in  the   works
\n     contract,\tand  shall  include  the
\n     value  of\t such  goods  purchased,
\n     manufactured, processed or procured
\n     otherwise by  the\tdealer\tand  the
\n     cost of  freight or delivery as may
\n     be\t incurred  by  such  dealer  for
\n     carrying such  goods to  the  place
\n     where these  are used  in execution
\n     of such  works contract,  but shall
\n     not include  such\tportion\t of  the
\n     aforesaid\t amounts   as\tmay   be
\n     prescribed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Explanation 2. – For the purpose of
\n     this   section,\tthe   expression
\n     “goods”\t include     commodities
\n     specified\t for\ttaxation   under
\n     section 25 of the West Bengal Sales
\n     Tax Act,  1954 (West  Bengal Act IV
\n     of 1954),\t and notwithstanding any
\n     contained in  this Act  or\t in  the
\n     West Bengal  Act IV  of 1954),  tax
\n     shall be levied on such commodities
\n     under this section.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     A perusal\tof section 6D clearly indicates that it is a
\nself-contained code  so far as dealers in Works contract are
\nconcerned. Whatever  concessions the  Legislature Wanted  to
\nextend to such dealers were enumerated in clauses (a) to (e)
\nof sub-section (2) of section 6D. Apart from that and having
\nregard to the non obstinate clause used in section 6D, it is
\nmade clear no further concession was intended to be extended
\nto the\tdealers in  Works contract.  As they form a class by
\nthemselves,  they   cannot  compare  themselves\t With  other
\ndealers\t coming\t  under\t sections   4  or   5\tand   allege
\ndiscrimination to  invoke Article  14 of the Constitution of
\nIndia. The  Tribunal has rightly taken a view by holding `we
\nare satisfied  that the\t contractors,  being  dealers  under
\nsection 6D  read with section 2 (c), have been appropriately
\ngrouped together  in one  class, distinct  and separate from
\nthe other  classes of  dealers. The  charge of arbitrariness
\nand unreasonableness must fail. The classification cannot be
\nfaulted on  account of\tdenial of  the facility\t of  use  of
\ndeclaration forms.  because this  class of  dealers has been
\ntreated and dealt with on a different footing altogether and
\nthey are  governed by almost a self-contained code envisaged
\nin section 6D.’
\n     As rightly\t pointed out  by learned  senior counsel for
\nthe respondents\t Mr. B.\t Sen, the  recent decision  of\tthis
\nCourt in  Gannon Dunkerley  and Co.  Vs. State\tof Rajasthan
\n(1993) 1  SCC 364  also\t supports  the\tview  taken  by\t the
\nTribunal. This Court has observed as follows :\n<\/p>\n
     “A question has been raised whether
\n     it is  permissible\t for  the  State
\n     Legislature to  levy tax  on deemed
\n     sales falling  Within the\tambit of
\n     Article   366    (29-A)   (b)    by
\n     prescribing a  uniform rate  of tax
\n     for  all\tgoods  involved\t in  the
\n     execution of  a Works contract even
\n     though different  rates of\t tax are
\n     prescribed for  sale of such goods.
\n     The   learned   counsel   for   the
\n     contractors have urged that t would
\n     not be  permissible to  impose  two
\n     different rates  of tax  in respect
\n     of sale  of the  same article,  one
\n     rate  When\t  the  article\tis  sold
\n     separately\t and  a\t different  rate
\n     when  there   is  deemed\tsale  in
\n     connection with  the  execution  of
\n     Works contract.  On behalf\t of  the
\n     States it\thas been  submitted that
\n     it is  permissible for the State to
\n     impose a  particular rate of tax on
\n     all goods involved in the execution
\n     of a  works contract  which may  be
\n     different from  the  rates\t of  tax
\n     applicable to those goods when sold
\n     separately.   In\tthe   field   of
\n     taxation  the   decisions\tof  this
\n     Court    have     permitted     the
\n     legislature    to\t  exercise    an
\n     extremely\t wide\t discretion   in
\n     classifying items for tax purposes,
\n     so long  as it  refrains from clear
\n     and hostile  discrimination against
\n     particular\t persons   or\tclasses.
\n     (See: East\t India\tTobacco\t Co.  v.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     State\tof\t A.P.,\t    P.M.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Ashwathanarayana Shetty v. State of
\n     Karnataka, Federation  of\tHotel  &
\n     Restaurant Association  of India V.
\n     Union of India and Kerala Hotel and
\n     Restaurant Association vs. State of
\n     Kerala.) Imposition of<\/a> sales tax at
\n     different rates  depending\t on  the
\n     value of  the annual  turnover  was
\n     upheld in\tS. Kodar  vs.  State  of
\n     Kerala.  Similarly,<\/a>  imposition  of
\n     Purchase tax at different rates for
\n     sugar mills and Khandsari units Was
\n     upheld in Ganga Sugar Co. vs. State
\n     of U.P.  In our opinion, therefore,
\n     it Would  be  permissible\tfor  the
\n     State Legislature\tto tax\tall  the
\n     goods involved  in the execution of
\n     a Works  contract at a uniform rate
\n     Which may\tbe  different  from  the
\n     rates  applicable\t to   individual
\n     goods because  the goods  Which are
\n     involved in  the execution\t of  the
\n     Works contract when incorporated in
\n     the works\tcan be classified into a
\n     Separate category\tfor the\t purpose
\n     of imposing  the tax  and a uniform
\n     rate may  be prescribed for sale of
\n     such goods.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In\t view  of  the\tabove  we  hold\t that  there  is  no
\ndiscrimination violating  Article 14  of  the  Constitutions
\nalleged by the learned counsel for the appellants.
\nSo far\tas the\tsecond contention  urged on  behalf  of\t the
\nlearned counsel for the appellant is concerned, the Tribunal
\non facts  has found  the contractor  has to pay the price of
\nthe goods  supplied by\tthe contractee by way of adjustment.
\nhis Court  in 1989  (2) SCC  645  (supra)  has\tobserved  as
\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n
     “Ordinarily  unless   there  is   a
\n     contract to  the contrary,\t in  the
\n     case  of\ta  Works   contract  the
\n     property in  the goods  used in the
\n     construction  of\ta  building   is
\n     constructed,  when\t  the  goos   or
\n     materials used  are incorporated in
\n     the   building.\tThe   contractor
\n     becomes liable to pay the sales tax
\n     ordinarily\t when\tthe   goods   or
\n     materials\tare   so  used\t in  the
\n     construction of the building and it
\n     is not  necessary to  wait till the
\n     final  bill  is  prepared\tfor  the
\n     entire work.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It\t is,   therefore,  clear  that\tgoods  used  in\t the
\nexecution of  the works\t contract stand transferred from the
\ncontractor to  the contractee  at the  time  the  goods\t are
\nincorporated in\t the construction. It is also brought to our
\nnotice by  the learned\tcounsel for the respondents that the
\nprinciple laid\tdown by\t this Court  in N.M.  Goel & Co. vs.
\nSales Tax of<\/a>ficer & Anr., 72 STC 375 squarely applies to the
\nsecond point  raised herein.  While  considering  a  similar
\nissue, namely,\tWhether there  was sale\t of goods in view of
\nthe contract  between the parties whereunder the custody and
\ncontrol of the goods remained with the P.W.D. and goods were
\nonly used in the construction under the contract, this Court
\nheld that  `in the  instant case,  by use  or consumption of
\nmaterials in  the work of construction, there was passing of
\nthe property in the goods to the assessee from the P.W.D. By
\nappropriation and  by the  agreement, there  was a  sale  as
\nenvisaged in  terms of\tclause (10)  set  out  hereinbefore.
\nTherefore, in out opinion, there was a sale which was liable
\nto tax’.  Though this  case was\t sought to  be distinguished
\nbefore the  Tribunal  by  contending  that  ration  must  be
\ntreated as one given per incuriam it was rightly rejected by
\nthe Tribunal.  We are,\ttherefore,  in\tagreement  with\t the
\nconclusion reached  by the  Tribunal that `having considered
\nall aspects  of the  matter, we\t hold that a sale within the
\nmeaning of  section 2(g) of the 1941 Act, namely, a transfer
\nof property in goods supplied by the owner\/contractee to the
\ncontractor for\tuse in\tthe execution  of a  works  contract
\ntakes place  in the cases under our consideration, when such
\ngoods are  actually used  in the construction work, provided
\nprices of  such goods  are deducted from or adjusted against
\nbills or dues of the contractor.’
\nSo far\tas the\tthird question\tof  payment  of\t royalty  is
\nconcerned, We  do not  think there  is any substance in that
\nargument. As rightly pointed out by  the learned counsel for
\nthe respondents\t that in  view of the decision of this court
\nin Orient Paper Mills (supra) the payment of royalty amounts
\nto  payment  of\t price\tfor  the  goods\t obtained  from\t the
\nGovernment Departments and used in the works contract.
\nRegarding the  additional minor\t point, the Tribunal has not
\nfinally disposed of the issue and it has left open the issue
\nby observing as follows :\n<\/p>\n
     “Learned counsel for the applicants
\n     did not  submit that such inclusion
\n     is\t   in\t any\tway    bad    or
\n     unconstitutional. Expenses incurred
\n     on\t account  of  labour  simplicity
\n     surely cannot  form a  part of  the
\n     contractual transfer  price  simply
\n     because it\t is not\t a value  of  or
\n     valuable  consideration   for   any
\n     `goods’ unless such expense amounts
\n     to cost  of freight or delivery for
\n     carrying the goods to the Worksite.
\n     It Will depend on the circumstances
\n     in Which  or the  purpose for which
\n     labour  was   employed.   On   this
\n     question we  hold accordingly. Each
\n     case shall have to be judged on its
\n     own  merits  and  on  its\tpeculiar
\n     facts. … We, therefore, do not at
\n     this stage\t express any expenses as
\n     to whether\t or not\t they will  form
\n     part of  the  contractual\ttransfer
\n     price.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In view  of the  above it\tis not\tnecessary to go into
\nthis issue further .\n<\/p>\n
     For the foregoing reasons, we do not think there is any
\ncase for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.
\nAccordingly, the appeals are dismissed. No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Cooch Behar Contractors’ … vs State Of West Bengal And Others on 11 September, 1996 Author: V K. Bench: Venkataswami K. (J) PETITIONER: COOCH BEHAR CONTRACTORS’ ASSOCIATION & OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/09\/1996 BENCH: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) BENCH: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) BHARUCHA S.P. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-158520","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCooch Behar Contractors' ... vs State Of West Bengal And Others on 11 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cooch-behar-contractors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-others-on-11-september-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Cooch Behar Contractors' ... vs State Of West Bengal And Others on 11 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cooch-behar-contractors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-others-on-11-september-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-15T10:55:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cooch-behar-contractors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-others-on-11-september-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cooch-behar-contractors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-others-on-11-september-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Cooch Behar Contractors’ … vs State Of West Bengal And Others on 11 September, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-15T10:55:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cooch-behar-contractors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-others-on-11-september-1996\"},\"wordCount\":2995,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cooch-behar-contractors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-others-on-11-september-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cooch-behar-contractors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-others-on-11-september-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cooch-behar-contractors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-others-on-11-september-1996\",\"name\":\"Cooch Behar Contractors' ... vs State Of West Bengal And Others on 11 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-15T10:55:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cooch-behar-contractors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-others-on-11-september-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cooch-behar-contractors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-others-on-11-september-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cooch-behar-contractors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-others-on-11-september-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Cooch Behar Contractors’ … vs State Of West Bengal And Others on 11 September, 1996\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Cooch Behar Contractors' ... vs State Of West Bengal And Others on 11 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cooch-behar-contractors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-others-on-11-september-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Cooch Behar Contractors' ... vs State Of West Bengal And Others on 11 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cooch-behar-contractors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-others-on-11-september-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-15T10:55:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cooch-behar-contractors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-others-on-11-september-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cooch-behar-contractors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-others-on-11-september-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Cooch Behar Contractors’ … vs State Of West Bengal And Others on 11 September, 1996","datePublished":"1996-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-15T10:55:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cooch-behar-contractors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-others-on-11-september-1996"},"wordCount":2995,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cooch-behar-contractors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-others-on-11-september-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cooch-behar-contractors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-others-on-11-september-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cooch-behar-contractors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-others-on-11-september-1996","name":"Cooch Behar Contractors' ... vs State Of West Bengal And Others on 11 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-15T10:55:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cooch-behar-contractors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-others-on-11-september-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cooch-behar-contractors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-others-on-11-september-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cooch-behar-contractors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-others-on-11-september-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Cooch Behar Contractors’ … vs State Of West Bengal And Others on 11 September, 1996"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/158520","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=158520"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/158520\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=158520"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=158520"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=158520"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}