M/S. Udaipur Cement vs. State Of Rajasthan 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 found that the issue was no longer res integra and was squarely covered by a previous judgment of the same Court in Hindustan Zinc Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5506/2018). The ratio decidendi is that despite the amendment to the definition of 'Goods' in the CST Act, 'C' forms are to be issued for HSD procured for mining purposes via 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. The concerned authorities were directed to process such claims within twelve weeks of the petitioner making a written claim and furnishing requisite documents.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Udaipur Cement Work Limited, sought a direction from the Rajasthan High Court to issue 'C' forms for the purchase of High Speed Diesel (HSD). Previously, under the pre-GST regime, the petitioner purchased HSD against 'C' forms for manufacturing activities. However, this was denied post-GST due to an amendment in Clause (d) of Section 2 of the CST Act, which amended the definition of 'Goods'. The petitioner argued that this denial was incorrect. The respondents, including the State of Rajasthan and the Union of India, were the authorities against whom the petition was filed. The tax period is not explicitly stated but pertains to the post-amendment period.

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 Clause (d) of Section 2 of the CST Act? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they were entitled to 'C' forms for HSD purchases for manufacturing activities, as they had been doing so in the pre-GST regime. The amendment to the CST Act should not preclude them from obtaining these forms. Respondents' Contention: The respondents denied the issuance of 'C' forms based on the amendment to the definition of 'Goods' in the CST Act. The judgment does not explicitly record any further arguments or reliance on specific provisions or precedents by the respondents.