Fci Aravali Gypsum And Minerals INDIA LTD. vs. State Of Rajasthan

Held

The Court held that the controversy involved in the present writ petition was indeed identical to the one decided in the case of Ladu Lal Hiran & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. The Court noted that the respondents had not contested the reverse charge mechanism and had accepted it as a proposition supported by their pleadings in the earlier case. Consequently, the Court found no reason for further adjudication. Following the precedent set in the Ladu Lal Hiran case, the present writ petition was allowed. The impugned letter dated 08.11.2017, issued by the Finance (Tax) Department, Rajasthan Government, was quashed and set aside. The Court directed the respondents to issue the requisite clarification as a follow-up to the setting aside of the said letter. No order as to costs was made.

Facts

The petitioner, FCI Aravali Gypsum And Minerals India Ltd. (Fagmil), filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court. The petitioner sought relief concerning a controversy identical to one decided by a coordinate bench of the same court in a previous case. The respondents, including the State of Rajasthan through various departments, were represented. The matter was heard and decided on the same day with the consent of both parties. The petitioner relied on a prior judgment in the case of Ladu Lal Hiran & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., dated 28.08.2018, which dealt with a similar issue.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present writ petition involves a controversy identical to the one decided by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5354/2018 (Ladu Lal Hiran & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the controversy in the present writ petition is exactly identical to the one decided by a coordinate bench of the High Court in the aforementioned case and therefore, the matter should be decided in light of that judgment. Revenue/State's Contention: The learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents was not in a position to dispute the fact that the controversy involved in the present writ petition was exactly identical to the one decided in the cited case. The respondents had previously contended that lessees/leaseholders would continue to submit and follow existing procedures for filing GST Returns, and payment of GST under the reverse charge mechanism would be as per law, with their liabilities remaining unaffected by an amended notification dated 26.07.2018.