M/S Vijay Nirman Co. PVT. LTD. vs. The State Of Assam And 3 Ors.

Held

The Court held that the impugned Circular No. 7/2017 dated September 5, 2017, issued by the Commissioner of State Tax, Assam, had already been set aside by a Co-ordinate Bench of the same High Court in the case of Star Cement Meghalaya Vs. State of Assam & Ors. (WP(C) No. 366/2018) by an order dated September 4, 2018. Following this, a fresh Circular No. 12/2018-GST dated August 9, 2018, was issued by the Commissioner of State Tax, Assam. This new circular provided for the issuance of declaration in Form 'C' for periods starting from July 1, 2017, subject to conditions enumerated in an Office Memorandum dated November 7, 2017, from the Ministry of Finance. Given that the original circular was set aside and a new one providing benefits was issued, the Court found nothing further to adjudicate. Consequently, the differential tax demand by IOCL, based on the now-set-aside Circular dated September 5, 2017, was also set aside. The Court, however, granted liberty to IOCL to initiate action in terms of the fresh Circular dated August 9, 2018. The writ petition was disposed of.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Vijay Nirman Co. Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging Circular No. 7/2017 dated September 5, 2017, issued by the Commissioner of State Tax, Assam. This circular rejected the issuance of statutory 'C' Forms under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and denied concessional tax rates. The petitioner argued this was contrary to law. Consequently, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL), respondent No. 3, raised a differential demand. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The challenge also extended to the consequential demand order by IOCL.

Key Issues

1. Whether Circular No. 7/2017 dated September 5, 2017, issued by the Commissioner of State Tax, Assam, which rejected the issuance of statutory 'C' Forms and concessional tax rates, is contrary to the express provisions of law? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned circular was contrary to the express provisions of law and that the consequential differential demand raised by IOCL was unjustified and violative of natural justice. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue respondents. However, it notes that the parties fairly submitted that in view of a subsequent circular, nothing remained to be adjudicated. The revenue's position was implicitly represented by the issuance of the impugned circular and the subsequent circular.