Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2025 (3) TMI 952 - HC - VAT / Sales TaxLegality validity and correctness of notification No.F-10/101/2006/CT/V/(94) dated 31-10-2006 (Annexure P-2) issued by the State of Chhattisgarh in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15-B 72(i)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act 2005 read with sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956 (CST Act) incorporating the amended provisions of Section 8 (5) of the CST Act - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that pursuant to the notification dated 3-6-1993 the petitioner Company was granted exemption as the petitioner Company is said to have invested more than Rs. 1 000 crores in Integrated Steel Plant and the benefit of exemption started from 22-9-1996 thereafter on 10-5-2002 Section 8 (5) of the CST Act was amended making fulfillment of Section 8 (4) of the CST Act (production of C-Form) mandatory for availing the benefit of exemption under Section 8 (5) and pursuant to the notification dated 10-5-2002 making production of C-Form mandatory the State Government issued notification dated 31-10-2006 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15-B 72(i)(b) of the Chhattisgarh VAT Act read with sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the CST Act incorporating the amended provisions of Section 8 (5) of the CST Act by which filing / production of C-Form has been made mandatory for availing the benefit of exemption under Section 8 (5) of the CST Act which the petitioner Company has called in question in the instant writ petitions. However in this regard decision of the Bombay High Court in Prism Cement Limited 2013 (7) TMI 668 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT was assailed before the Supreme Court by the State of Maharashtra in Prism Cement Limited s case 2025 (2) TMI 475 - SUPREME COURT in which their Lordships have considered the issue with respect to Section 8 (5) of the CST Act clarifying the legal position and held that such restrictions are prospective in nature and would not apply retrospectively to cases where absolute exemption was permitted much prior to the amendment. Reverting to the facts of the case in light of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court it is quite vivid that the petitioner Company has been granted absolute exemption from the tax liability on fulfillment of certain conditions as per the notification dated 3-6-1993 and as per the decision of the Supreme Court the amendment made in Section 8 (5) of the CST Act making the production of C-Form mandatory for availing benefit of tax exemption wold apply with effect from 10-5-2002 and the amended provision of Section 8 (5) with effect from 10-5-2002 would apply prospectively to the transactions in respect of which Eligibility Certificate are issued subsequently as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. It is made clear that notification dated 31-10-2006 would not apply to the petitioner Company as they had already been exempted with effect from 22-9-1996 as the exemption was available up to 21-9-2019 and now on coming into force of the GST regime up to 30-6-2017. In that view of the matter notification dated 31-10-2006 would not apply to the petitioner Company and exemption would be available as per the notification dated 3-6-1993 up to 30-6-2017. Conclusion - The absolute power initially conferred under Section 8 (5) upon the State Government to grant exemption/partial exemption of tax in connection with inter-State sale trade or commerce with the amendment was circumscribed and restricted to the fulfilment of the requirement of Section 8 (4) of the CST Act which prescribes for the submission of Form C and D only w.e.f. 11.05.2002. However such restrictions are prospective in nature and would not apply retrospectively to cases where absolute exemption was permitted much prior to the amendment. Petition allowed.
|