9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 952X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. Petitioner M/s. Jayaswal Neco Industries Limited, in both the writ petitions, has called in question legality, 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 (for short, 'the Chhattisgarh VAT Act') read with sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, 'the CST Act') incorporating the amended provisions of Section 8 (5) of the CST Act, branding the same as unconstitutional and invalid in law. Petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 of the CST Act. The petitioner was denied the benefit of exemption in absence of Form C for the relevant assessment year and assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer which was unsuccessfully assailed in first appeal and thereafter in second appeal leading to filing of the instant writ petitions questioning the constitutional validity of notification No.F-10/101/2006/CT/V/(94) dated 31-10-2006 (Annexure P-2) and the consequent order dated 26-11-2016 (Annexure P-4 in WPT No.93/2017) passed by the Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Tribunal, Raipur in Case No. A/65/15/2016/Central. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner Company was granted the benefit of exemption by notification dated 3-6-1993 in the year 1996 for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts of the present case and it has no force and statutory power has been exercised by the Government which is strictly in accordance with law. As such, both the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 5. Mr. M.P. Devnath and Mr. Neelabh Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Company, would submit that the issue involved in the writ petitions now stands conclusively decided by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of The State of Maharashtra and others v. Prism Cement Limited and another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 298, as such, both the writ petitions deserve to be allowed. 6. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents, would submit that no ground is made out for questioning the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm 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 (supra) was assailed before the Supreme Court by the State of Maharashtra in Prism Cement Limited's case (supra) 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. It has been observed in paragraph 17 as under:- "17. The aforesaid a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anted without any condition of submission of Form 'C' and 'D'. Ultimately, their Lordships held that the State Government is not justified in taking away such a right accrued to the assessee on mere prospective amendment of Section 8 (5) of the CST Act without revoking the Entitlement Certificate & notice or opportunity of hearing, and observed as under:- "28. Moreover, the law is settled that if a substantive right has accrued to a person, it cannot be taken away unilaterally without notice or an opportunity of hearing to the said person. Thus, after the amendment of Section 8 (5), the Government was not authorised to pass a unilateral order affecting the rights of the assessee-respondent for claiming absolute exemption f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 effec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
