M/S. Sarvajeet Singh Anand vs. State Of Rajasthan

Held

The Court held that the respondents are liable to issue 'C' Forms in respect of High Speed Diesel procured for mining purposes through interstate trade. The Court reasoned that Parliament has retained high speed diesel along with other specific petroleum products in Section 9 of the GST Act while defining 'goods'. Furthermore, the registration under Section 7(2) of the Act remained valid and could only be cancelled within the parameters of Section 4 of the CST Act. Therefore, it was an obligatory duty of the respondents to issue 'C' forms to the petitioner, and any failure to do so was without authority of law. The Court found no distinction between the petitioner's case and that of the petitioner in the cited case of Carpo Power Limited. Accordingly, the Court directed that the respondents are liable to issue 'C' Forms. In the event the petitioners had paid any amount due to the wrongful refusal to issue 'C' Forms, they are entitled to a refund or adjustment from the concerned authorities who collected the excess tax. The concerned authorities were directed to process such claims within twelve weeks of their being made in writing by the petitioners, along with requisite documents.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sarvajeet Singh Anand, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the controversy in this petition was identical to that in a previous writ petition, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5506/2018, titled 'Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.'. The counsel for the respondent Commercial Taxes Department agreed that the controversy was identical. The High Court referred to the operative portion of its order dated May 18, 2018, in the aforementioned writ petition, which dealt with the issuance of 'C' forms for High Speed Diesel procured for mining purposes through interstate trade.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are liable to issue 'C' forms in respect of High Speed Diesel procured for mining purposes through interstate trade, considering that High Speed Diesel is specifically mentioned in Section 9 of the GST Act while defining 'goods', and the registration under Section 7(2) of the Act is valid and has not been cancelled. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the issue is squarely covered by a previous order of the High Court in a similar case, Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., and thus the writ petition should be decided in the same terms. Revenue/State's Argument: The respondent Commercial Taxes Department agreed that the controversy in the present writ petition is identical to the controversy in the cited writ petition and submitted that the petition may be decided in the same terms.