Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the respondents are liable to issue 'C' Forms to the petitioner for the High Speed Diesel procured for its power plants. The Court reasoned that the controversy was no longer res integra, having been decided in favour of the petitioner in the case of Carpo Power Limited, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court. The Court noted that High Speed Diesel, along with other specified petroleum products, was retained under Section 9 of the GST Act. It was also emphasized that the petitioner's registration under Section 7(2) of the CST Act was still valid and had not been cancelled, and cancellation could only occur within the parameters of Section 4 of the CST Act. Therefore, the refusal to issue 'C' Forms was deemed to be without authority of law. The Court directed the respondents to issue 'C' Forms and, in case the petitioner had paid excess tax due to the wrongful refusal, to process claims for refund or adjustment within twelve weeks of the petitioner making a written claim with requisite documents.

Facts

The petitioner, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the refusal to issue 'C' Forms for the procurement of High Speed Diesel for its power plants. The petitioner argued that the controversy was settled by previous judgments of the High Court, specifically Hindustan Zinc Limited Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. and Carpo Power Limited Vs. State of Haryana and Ors., the latter of which was confirmed by the Supreme Court. The respondents, including the Union of India and the State of Rajasthan, were represented. The core of the dispute revolved around the eligibility for 'C' Forms under the Central Sales Tax (CST) Act, particularly in light of the implementation of GST.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are liable to issue 'C' Forms to the petitioner for the procurement of High Speed Diesel for use in the generation or distribution of electricity, despite the implementation of GST laws? (Question of law turning on Section 8 of the CST Act, Rule 12 of CST (R&T) Rules, and the definition of 'goods' under Section 2(d) of the CST Act, as well as Section 7(2) and Section 7(4) of the CST Act). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the issue was squarely covered by the judgment in Carpo Power Limited, which held that 'C' Forms should be issued for goods purchased for re-sale or use in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale, including in the generation or distribution of electricity. They argued that the CST Act provisions and 'C' Form usage had not been amended to restrict their application post-GST. Furthermore, the petitioner's registration under Section 7(2) of the CST Act remained valid and had not been cancelled as per Section 7(4) of the CST Act. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records that the respondents were represented, but it does not detail their specific arguments. It notes that their submissions were considered and dealt with in the Carpo Power Limited case.