M/S. Shri Mohangarh Construction Company vs. State Of Rajasthan And Ors.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, following the precedent set in the case of Hindustan Zinc Limited Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. 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 reasoning was based on the fact that High Speed Diesel is included within the definition of 'goods' under Section 9 of the GST Act, and the petitioner's registration under Section 7(2) of the Act remained valid. The Court found no distinguishing factors from the cited case. The operative directions included that in the event the petitioner had paid any amount due to the wrongful refusal to issue 'C' forms, they would be entitled to a refund and/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 submission, along with requisite documents.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shri Mohangarh Construction Company, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court. The petitioner sought directions from the respondents, including the State of Rajasthan and the Union of India, to issue 'C' forms. The 'C' forms are relevant for interstate trade of High Speed Diesel procured for mining purposes. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment by a coordinate bench of the same High Court in the case of Hindustan Zinc Limited Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. The respondents were represented by their respective counsel. The parties stated that the controversy in the present petition was identical to the one decided in the cited case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are liable to issue 'C' forms to the petitioner for High Speed Diesel procured for mining purposes through interstate trade, considering the provisions of the GST Act and the CST Act. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that High Speed Diesel, along with other petroleum products, is specifically mentioned in Section 9 of the GST Act while defining 'goods'. They contended that their registration under Section 7(2) of the Act is valid and has not been cancelled. Therefore, it is an obligatory duty of the respondents to issue 'C' forms, and any failure to do so is without authority of law. They relied on the judgment in Hindustan Zinc Limited Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Respondents' Argument: The judgment records that the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties made a statement at the Bar that the controversy involved in this writ petition is absolutely identical to the one which was considered and decided by the learned Single Bench in the referred bunch of writ petitions, and thus, the same order may be passed. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondents beyond this joint submission.