2021 (2) TMI 1228 - SCH - VAT and Sales Tax

Denial of C-Form - inter-State sale as a result of which a higher rate of tax was charged - HELD THAT - The High Court in J.K. CEMENT LTD. VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT 2020 (3) TMI 140 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT has held that the dealer has passed on the burden to the respondent and hence to deny the claim of refund to the respondent despite the State not contesting in principle the liability to refund would be hyper-technical . SLP dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of C form in an inter-State sale leading to a higher tax rate.
2. Interpretation of Section 36 of the Gujarat VAT Act 2003 for granting refunds to registered dealers.
3. High Court's ruling on passing the burden to the respondent for refund denial despite the State not contesting the liability.
4. Dismissal of Special Leave Petitions and keeping open the interpretation of Section 36 for future cases.
5. Extension of time for refund compliance due to contempt proceedings against State authorities.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Supreme Court pertains to a case where the respondent was denied a C form in an inter-State sale, resulting in the imposition of a higher tax rate. The High Court had earlier ruled in favor of the respondent, upholding their entitlement to seek a refund as the refusal to issue the C form was deemed contrary to the law. The State did not dispute the refund owed to the respondent. However, the petitioner argued that Section 36 of the Gujarat VAT Act 2003 only allows refunds to registered dealers in the state with pending assessment proceedings, which the respondent was not. The High Court countered this argument by stating that the burden had been passed on to the respondent, making the denial of refund "hyper-technical."

The Supreme Court, after considering the facts presented, declined to entertain the Special Leave Petitions. It was noted that the interpretation of Section 36 could be raised by the State of Gujarat in future cases to be decided by the competent forum. The Special Leave Petitions were ultimately dismissed. Additionally, due to contempt proceedings against the State authorities regarding refund compliance, the Court extended the time for refunding the amount due to the respondent by four weeks from the judgment date. The judgment emphasizes the need for a balanced interpretation of the law while also ensuring compliance with court orders and addressing technicalities in a fair manner.