Nuclear Power Corporation Of INDIA LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (NPCIL), sought a direction from the Rajasthan High Court to issue 'C' forms. NPCIL previously purchased High Speed Diesel (HSD) against 'C' forms for its manufacturing activities under the pre-GST regime. However, this practice was discontinued following an amendment to Clause (d) of Section 2 of the CST Act, which redefined 'Goods'. The respondents, including the Union of India and the State of Rajasthan, denied the issuance of 'C' forms on this ground. The dispute centers on the eligibility of HSD, procured for electricity generation through interstate trade, for 'C' forms.

Held

The Court held that the respondents are liable to issue 'C' forms to the petitioner for High Speed Diesel procured for generating electricity through interstate trade. The Court found that the issue was no longer res integra and was squarely covered by the ratio of its own previous judgment in Hindustan Zinc Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5506/2018). The reasoning was that the amendment to Section 2(d) of the CST Act did not alter the fundamental nature of the transaction concerning the eligibility for 'C' forms in such cases. The ratio decidendi is that 'C' forms must be issued for High Speed Diesel procured for electricity generation via interstate trade, irrespective of the amendment to the definition of 'Goods' in Section 2(d) of the CST Act, as long as the transaction qualifies as interstate trade. The Court directed that if the petitioner had paid any amount due to the wrongful refusal to issue 'C' forms, they are entitled to a refund or adjustment from the concerned authorities. These claims are to be processed within twelve weeks of being made in writing with requisite documents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are liable to issue 'C' forms to the petitioner for the procurement of High Speed Diesel for generating electricity through interstate trade, considering the amendment to Section 2(d) of the CST Act? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that despite the amendment to the definition of 'Goods' in the CST Act, they are entitled to 'C' forms for HSD procured for their manufacturing activities, specifically for electricity generation, as this constitutes interstate trade. They relied on the principle established in previous judgments where similar issues were decided in their favor. Respondents' contention: The respondents denied the issuance of 'C' forms on the ground that the definition of 'Goods' under the CST Act was amended, implying that HSD might no longer fall within the scope of goods eligible for 'C' forms in the context of the petitioner's activities. The judgment does not explicitly record any specific statutory provisions or precedents relied upon by the respondents, other than the amendment itself.