M/S. Shreenath Enterprises PVT. LTD. vs. State Of Rajasthan

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Shreenath Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., sought a direction from the Rajasthan High Court to compel the respondents to issue 'C' forms. The petitioner had previously purchased High Speed Diesel (HSD) against 'C' forms for 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 altered the definition of 'Goods'. The petitioner argued that they should continue to receive 'C' forms for HSD procured for mining purposes through interstate trade. The respondents, including the State of Rajasthan and the Union of India, opposed this.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the respondents are liable to issue 'C' forms in respect of High Speed Diesel procured for mining purposes through interstate trade. The Court found that the issue was squarely covered by its previous judgment in Hindustan Zinc Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. The ratio decidendi is that despite amendments to the definition of 'Goods' in the CST Act, 'C' forms are still to be issued for High Speed Diesel procured for mining purposes through interstate trade. The Court directed that if 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 the petitioner making a written claim and furnishing requisite documents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are liable to issue 'C' forms in respect of High Speed Diesel procured for mining purposes through interstate trade, considering the amendment to the definition of 'Goods' under the CST Act? The petitioner contended that despite the amendment to Section 2(d) of the CST Act, the 'C' forms should continue to be issued for HSD purchased for mining activities, as this was the established practice. They relied on the principle that beneficial provisions should be interpreted liberally. The respondents argued that the amendment to the definition of 'Goods' under the CST Act now excludes HSD from being considered 'goods' for the purpose of 'C' form issuance, thereby justifying the refusal. They likely relied on the amended statutory provision.