2019 (6) TMI 802 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Power to review or keep in abeyance an order passed by it on the ground of seeking guidance from the superior authority - HELD THAT - In the facts of the present case, it is an admitted position that the second respondent firstly granted amendment of the registration certificates of the petitioners by including High Speed Diesel as commodity; and thereafter has kept them in abeyance for the purpose of obtaining guidance of the higher authority. In the considered opinion of this court, there being no power vested in the authority to review its order under section 7 of the CST Act or to keep such order in abeyance, the stand of the second respondent in the impugned letters dated 27.2.2019 informing the petitioners that their on-line applications had been approved through oversight and that High Speed Diesel would be included in CST commodity after obtaining guidance of the higher authority cannot be countenanced even for a moment - Impugned order cannot be sustained. CST Registrations of dealers other than those dealing in the specified goods would automatically become inactive - HELD THAT - When the legislature wants to provide for automatic cancellation of the registration granted under an enactment, it is expressly provided in such enactment. Since no such provision has been made in the CST Act, no such intention can be read into it and consequently, upon the coming into force of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2017 whereby the definition of goods in the CST Act came to be amended, CST registrations of dealers other than those dealing in the specified commodities would not become inactive automatically. Benefit of reduced rate of tax - Whether a dealer who is registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act cannot also be registered under the CST Act, when the CST Act requires a person who deals in or claims usage of the goods specified thereunder to be registered under that Act for getting the benefit of reduced rate of tax under section 8 thereof? - HELD THAT - If a dealer is dealing in goods falling within the ambit of the GST Act as well as the CST Act, it is always permissible for him to hold separate registrations under both the Acts in respect of such goods. Therefore, a dealer who is registered under the GST Act can also be registered under the CST Act in respect of commodities which fall within the ambit of the expression goods as defined under section 2(d) thereof for getting the benefit of reduced rate of tax under section 8 of the CST Act. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Authority to review or keep in abeyance an order passed under section 7 of the CST Act.
2. Impact of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2017 on CST registrations.
3. Compatibility of dual registration under the GST Act and the CST Act.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Authority to Review or Keep in Abeyance an Order Passed Under Section 7 of the CST Act
The court examined whether the authority under section 7 of the CST Act has the power to review or keep in abeyance an order on the ground of seeking guidance from a superior authority. It was held that the second respondent, a State Tax Officer, is the notified authority to decide applications for registration under section 7 of the CST Act and must act independently without seeking guidance from a higher authority. The court emphasized that there is no provision in section 7 of the CST Act that allows the authority to review or keep an order in abeyance. Consequently, the impugned letters dated 27.2.2019, which kept the approval of the petitioners' registration amendments in abeyance, were held to be without jurisdiction and illegal.

Issue 2: Impact of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2017 on CST Registrations
The court addressed whether CST registrations of dealers dealing in goods other than those specified in the amended section 2(d) of the CST Act would automatically become inactive upon the coming into force of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2017. It was held that there is no provision in the CST Act for automatic cancellation or inactivation of registration certificates. The court noted that while the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 provides for automatic deregistration, no such provision exists in the CST Act. Therefore, the CST registrations of dealers dealing in goods not specified in the amended section 2(d) do not automatically become inactive.

Issue 3: Compatibility of Dual Registration Under the GST Act and the CST Act
The court considered whether a dealer registered under the GST Act could also be registered under the CST Act. It was held that dealers dealing in goods specified under the amended section 2(d) of the CST Act must be registered under the CST Act to benefit from the reduced tax rate under section 8. The court clarified that dealers could hold separate registrations under both the GST Act and the CST Act if they deal in goods covered by both Acts. Thus, the contention that petitioners registered under the GST Act could not be registered under the CST Act was rejected.

Conclusion:
The petitions were allowed, and the impugned letters dated 27.2.2019 were quashed and set aside, with the court ruling in favor of the petitioners on all three issues. The court made the rule absolute with costs.