Asi Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Held

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 Court relied on the precedent set in Hindustan Zinc Limited Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. The reasoning was that the controversy had been decided by a coordinate bench, and no contrary decision or challenge to that precedent was presented by the respondents. The ratio decidendi is that where a High Court has settled a legal issue concerning the issuance of 'C' forms for specific purposes, subsequent petitions raising the same issue should be decided in line with that precedent, absent any higher court intervention. The Court directed 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 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 with requisite documents. The Court also noted that parties would be bound by any subsequent decision rendered by a Division Bench or a Higher Court.

Facts

The petitioner, Asi Industries Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the respondents' refusal to issue 'C' forms after the implementation of the GST Act, 2017. The petitioner sought a direction for the issuance of 'C' forms under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, either on the official website or manually. The petitioner relied on a judgment from the Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5506/2018 (Hindustan Zinc Limited Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.), which had allowed similar petitions. The respondents' counsel acknowledged the Jodhpur judgment but could not confirm if a Special Appeal had been filed against it.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are liable to issue 'C' forms under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for High Speed Diesel procured for mining purposes through interstate trade, even after the introduction of the GST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the issue was no longer res integra, citing the judgment in Hindustan Zinc Limited Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., which had allowed similar petitions and directed the issuance of 'C' forms. The petitioner contended that the controversy had been settled by this precedent. The respondents, while acknowledging the Jodhpur judgment, were unable to provide information regarding any Special Appeal filed against it, implying no challenge to the precedent was presented.