M/S Rajendra Singh Bhamboo Infra Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Rajendra Singh Bhamboo Infra Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court challenging the refusal of the respondents (Union of India, State of Rajasthan, Commissioner Commercial Tax Department, and Assistant Commissioner Commercial Taxes) to issue 'C' Forms for High Speed Diesel procured for mining purposes through inter-State trade. The petitioner argued that the issue was covered by previous judgments of the High Court and other High Courts, which had directed the issuance of 'C' Forms in similar circumstances. The respondents, represented by Mr. Nikhil Simlote, fairly admitted that the controversy was settled and did not object to the petition being allowed in terms of prior judgments.
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the respondents were liable to issue 'C' Forms in respect of High Speed Diesel procured by the petitioner company for mining purposes through inter-State trade. The Court's decision was based on the principle established in previous judgments, including ACC Limited-Lakheri Cement Works Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors., Hindustan Zinc Limited Versus The State of Rajasthan & Ors., and Carpo Power Limited, which were relied upon by the petitioner and conceded by the respondents. The Court reasoned that the refusal to issue 'C' Forms was wrongful. As a consequence, if the petitioner had paid any amount due to this wrongful refusal, they would be entitled to a refund or adjustment of such excess tax paid from the concerned authorities who collected it. The concerned authorities were directed to process such claims within 12 weeks of the petitioner making a written claim and furnishing the requisite documents.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the issuance of 'C' Forms for High Speed Diesel procured for mining purposes through inter-State trade, considering the existing judicial precedents? (Question of law) The petitioner contended that the controversy was squarely covered by the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in ACC Limited-Lakheri Cement Works Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. (SBCWP No. 10659/2019), which in turn relied on decisions in Hindustan Zinc Limited Versus The State of Rajasthan & Ors. and Carpo Power Limited. The petitioner also cited judgments from the Madras High Court (Ramco Cements Ltd.) and Orissa High Court (N.K. Bhojani (P) Ltd., Star Cement Meghalaya & Ors.) that followed Carpo Power Limited. The respondents, through their counsel, fairly admitted that the controversy was no longer res integra and had been settled by this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, and therefore, had no objection to the writ petition being allowed.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order
(2 of 3) [CW-4926/2020] 06/07/2020 On the oral request of the learned counsel for the petitioner service on respondents no. 1, 4 and 5 is dispensed with. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the instant petition stands squarely covered by the judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in ACC Limited-Lakheri Cement Works Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.: SBCWP No. 10659/2019, decided on 17.09.2019 wherein, this Court has held as under:
“4. This Court has been informed that the special appeal preferred by the State of Haryana against the decision in Carpo Power
Limited
(supra)
(in SLP No.20572/2018),
was rejected
on 13.08.2018. 5. The learned Single Judge in this case relied upon decision in Hindustan Zinc Limited Versus The State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2019 (64) GSTR 366 (Raj.), decided on 18.05.2018 where a direction was issued to the State of Rajasthan, to provide relief. This Court notices that in Hindustan Zinc Limited (supra) also relied upon Carpo Power Limited. Further, other High Courts to have followed the said ruling in Carpo Power Limited (supra)-the Madras High (64) GSTR 374 (Mad); the Orissa High Court in N.K. Bhojani (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 2019 (24) GSTL 28; and Star Cement Meghalaya & Ors. Versus State of Assam & Ors., 2019 (21) GSTL 484.” He prays that the instant petition may also be allowed accordingly. Mr. Nikhil Simlote, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 2 to 4 fairly admits that the controversy is no (3 of 3) [CW-4926/2020] more res integra and has been settled not only by this Court; but, also by the Hon’ble Apex Court and he has no objection if the writ petition is also allowed in terms of order passed by co-ordinate Bench in ACC Limited-Lakheri Cement Works (supra). The writ petition is allowed in terms that the respondents are liable to issue “C” Forms in respect of High Speed Diesel procured by the petitioner company for mining purpose through inter State trade. In the event of the petitioner having had to pay any amount on account of the respondents wrongful refusal to issue “C” Forms, the petitioner will be entitled to refund/adjustment of the same from the concerned authorities who collected the excess tax. The concerned authorities shall process such claim within 12 weeks of the same being made by the petitioner in writing and the petitioner furnishing the requisite form/document. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J MADAN MEENA /15
Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.