M/S. P.K.Thungan Builders PVT. LTD. vs. The State Of Assam Anad 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 coordinate bench of the 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, which provided for the benefits of concession in Form 'C'. Given that the basis of the challenge (Circular No. 7/2017) was already set aside, and a new circular providing concessions was in place, the Court found nothing further to be determined in the present proceedings. Consequently, the differential tax demand by IOCL, based on the now-set-aside Circular dated September 5, 2017, was also set aside. The respondents/IOCL were granted liberty to initiate action in terms of the fresh Circular dated August 9, 2018. The writ petition was disposed of.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. P.K. Thungan Builders Pvt. Ltd., challenged a 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 for the sale of six products. The petitioner argued this was contrary to law and led to an unjustified demand order from Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL). The petitioner also contended the demand violated principles of natural justice. The Court was informed that a coordinate bench had already set aside the impugned Circular No. 7/2017 in the case of Star Cement Meghalaya Vs. State of Assam & Ors. Subsequently, the Commissioner of State Tax issued a fresh Circular No. 12/2018-GST on August 9, 2018.

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 provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned circular was contrary to the express provisions of law. They also argued that the consequential demand raised by IOCL was unjustified and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the State respondents regarding the validity of Circular No. 7/2017. However, it notes the submission by the learned counsel for the parties that in view of the issuance of a new circular, nothing remained to be adjudicated.