TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decision of Punjab Haryana High Court in Carpo Power Limited, State had filed S.L.P. before the Supreme Court but the S.L.P. was dismissed by the Supreme Court by holding that there was no legal and valid ground for interference. A case for interim relief has been made out. Further, there should be uniformity in orders in similar matters - as an interim measure, we stay operation of the letter / order dated 22.08.2019 issued by respondent No.2 and direct the respondents to issue necessary C forms to the petitioner. Stand over to 06.01.2021. - WRIT PETITION NO.2923 OF 2019 - - - Dated:- 17-12-2020 - UJJAL BHUYAN ABHAY AHUJA, JJ. Mr. Sriram Sridharan, for the Petitioner. Mr. V. A. Sonpal, Special Counsel with Mr. S. B. Gore, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2-State. Mr. Mohamedali Chunawala for Respondent No.3. P.C. : (Per Ujjal Bhuyan, J.) Heard Mr. Sriram Sridharan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. V. A. Sonpal, learned special counsel with Mr. S. B. Gore, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2; and Mr. Mohamedali Chunawala, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 2. This case was heard on 03.12.2020 on the interim prayer. 3. By fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nover or at the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State under the sales tax law of that State, whichever is lower. In terms of sub-section (3)(b), the goods referred to in sub-section (1) are goods of the class or classes specified in the certificate of registration of the registered dealer purchasing the goods as being intended for resale by him or subject to any rules made by the Central Government in this behalf, for use by him in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or in the telecommunications network or in mining or in the generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power. Sub-section (4) says that to avail the concessional rate of tax, the dealer selling the goods must furnish to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner a declaration duly filled up and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods are sold containing the prescribed particulars. This declaration is in form C as per rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. 6.1. Sub-section (3)(b) of section 8 being relevant, the same is extracted hereunder: 8. Rates of tax on sales in the course of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of section 8(3)(b) read with section 8(1)(b) of the CST Act. This question arose because of amendment to the definition of the word goods in section 2(d) by insertion of the word newspapers as noticed above. In that context, Supreme Court held that section 2 which defines certain expressions occurring in the CST Act opens with the words in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires and explained that wherever the word goods occurs in the enactment i.e., the CST Act it is not mandatory that one should mechanically attribute to the said expression the meaning assigned to it in clause (d). It was held that where the context does not permit or where the context requires otherwise, the meaning assigned to it in the definition need not be applied. Keeping the above consideration in mind, it would be evident that the expression goods occurring in the second half of section 8(3)(b) cannot be taken to exclude newspapers from its purview. The context does not permit it. It could never have been included by the Parliament. Therefore, Supreme Court held that the expression goods occurring in the words for use by him in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale in sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all under the amended definition of goods in section 2(d) of the CST Act. Therefore, petitioner s prayer to issue form C to purchase natural gas for manufacturing of float glass could not be accepted. 13. This has led to filing of the writ petition. 14. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed affidavit supporting the stand taken by respondent No.2 to which petitioner has filed affidavit in rejoinder. 15. This petition was heard along with three other writ petitions i.e., Writ Petition No.932 of 2018, Writ Petition (L) No.2534 of 2020 and Writ Petition (L) No.4556 of 2020 on 03.11.2020 whereafter the following order was passed:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Mr. Sriram Sridharan submits that issue raised in the above four Writ Petitions is identical to the one raised in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.93160 of 2020 which is pending before this Court with an interim order and therefore prays for a similar interim order. 3. On the other hand, Mr. V. A. Sonpal, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that granting of an interim order would amount to granting of final relief and therefore he submits that the Writ Petitions may be heard finally. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase. 18. Per contra, Mr. Sonpal, learned special counsel submits that no interim relief should be granted as granting of interim relief would virtually amount to grant of final relief to the petitioner. His submission is that no interim relief should be granted for issuance of C forms; rather the writ petition may be heard. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Printers (Mysore) Limited (supra), he submits that the said judgment has to be read in the context in which it was passed. It was passed in the case of newspapers keeping in mind the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression; that cannot be extrapolated and applied in a case of manufacturing of float glass by using natural gas purchased by way of inter-state sale. In so far the Jharkhand High Court judgment is concerned, he submits that an S.L.P. has been filed by the State against the said judgment before the Supreme Court. On a query by the Court as to whether any notice has been issued in the S.L.P. or any stay granted, he submits that he has no instructions to that effect. 19. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. 20. Impugned decision of respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondents were liable to issue C forms in respect of the natural gas purchased by the petitioner from Gujarat and used in the generation or distribution of electricity at its power plants in Haryana. 22. As already noticed above, before the Jharkhand High Court similar question was raised following denial of C forms. Some of the petitioners were engaged in manufacturing process, some in mining activities and some others in power generation. They had purchased high speed diesel by way of inter-state sale which is used in the manufacturing, mining and generation of end product goods. Admittedly, their end products do not come within the definition of goods under section 2(d) of the CST Act. In that context, Jharkhand High Court referred to the case of Printers (Mysore) Limited (supra) and held that the reasonings given therein were fully applicable. The word goods appearing in the second half of section 8(3)(b) of the CST Act may not necessarily mean the goods as defined under section 2(d) of the CST Act. Further, registration of a dealer under section 7(2) of the CST Act is not subject to any liability of the dealer to pay tax. Jharkhand High Court approved the view t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner had not sold any of the products covered by the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 during the relevant period. Consequently, the certificate was cancelled with effect from 01.07.2017. Consequence of such cancellation is that the dealer i.e., the petitioner would not be entitled to use any C forms for transactions after 01.07.2017. 7. Mr. Nankani had elaborately taken us to the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as well as the provisions of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. He has also taken us to the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Carpo Power Limited (supra). 8. After examining the case of the petitioner vis-a-vis the judgment in Carpo Power Limited (supra), we are of the prima facie view that the aforesaid decision may be applicable to the case of the petitioner. That apart, Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Haryana against the aforesaid decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court holding that there was no legal and valid ground for interference. 9. In view of the above, there shall be stay of the impugned order dated 05.03.2020 till the returnable date and as a consequence respondents are directed to issue the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
