9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 450 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxBenefit of concessional rate of 2% of CST - Post GST era - Denial of benefit of purchases of HSD Diesel, Natural Gas in the course of inter-State Trade or Commerce - Declaration of 'C' forms of the CST Act, 1956. The bone contention of the Revenue in the present Writ Appeal is that with the enactment of the Constitutional 101st Amendment and consequential GST Laws enacted in all the States with effect from 1.7.2017 and the consequential amendments effected in the CST Act, 1956 also and amendment in the definition of 'Goods' restricting the operation of CST Act for only six commodities like Petroleum Crude, High Speed Diesel, Motor Spirit (Petrol), Aviation Turbine Fuel, Natural Gas and Liquor, the Assessee Company or whoever engaged in the manufacture of Cement and other things, which were now covered by the GST Laws were not entitled to purchase such Diesel, etc. these six specified goods against the Declaration Form 'C' at the concessional rate on the inter-State purchases of such goods made by them. HELD THAT - The liability to pay tax under the provisions of CST fixed on the Seller is not a condition precedent or the only contingency for getting himself registered under the provisions of the CST Act. Even a person, who is only purchasing goods in the inter-State Trade or Commerce, who may not be liable to pay tax under the provisions of CST Act as a Seller can also secure registration under the provisions of the said Act and can continue with it. Even a dealer liable to tax under State Sales Tax law, which may include even new State GST Act, 2017, can obtain registration under CST Act. In the present case, the Assessee, a Cement Company, continues to be liable to pay tax under local TNVAT Act, 2006 if it sells or purchases any of these six goods also. The TNVAT Act also has not been completely repealed but now applies only to these six commodities after 1.7.2017 , as per Section 174 of the TNGST Act, 2017. On a conjoint reading of both sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 7 of the CST Act, it is clear that the Respondents/Assessees and their likes can continue to have registration under the provisions of the CST Act and the contention raised on behalf of the Revenue that they have lost their entitlement to be so registered is misconceived and liable to be rejected. We, accordingly, reject the same. The mere restriction of the operation of the CST Act with respect to six commodities with effect from 1.7.2017 does not take away the right of the Purchasing Dealers to purchase such goods in the course of inter-State Trade or Commerce under the said Act and their registration cannot be said to be either pro tanto cancelled nor they can be cancelled as a matter of right by the Revenue Department. The right to deal with in those six goods still continues to vest in the Purchasing Dealers and therefore, this contention is misconceived. Right to hold registration - HELD THAT - The right to purchase, which is, essentially, a part of freedom of trade under Article 301 and 304 of the Constitution, cannot be taken away on the anvil of the argument raised by the learned counsel for the Revenue. Equally, the liability of these dealers to pay tax under local TNVAT Act on these six commodities also continues after 1.7.2017 if sale or purchase is made within the State - their right to hold registration under CST Act, 1956 cannot be denied to them under Section 7 of the Act. The next contention of the learned Special Government Pleader for the Revenue is that concessional rate of tax under Section 8(1) of the Act has to be read with the conditions specified in Section 8(3)(b) of the Act viz., against the Declaration in 'C' forms and therefore, such a provision for giving concessional rate of tax should be strictly construed and the said right should be deemed to have been taken away with the Amendment in law with the GST Regime coming into force - This is also a contention equally devoid of merit. Even a strict, literal and plain construction of provisions of the Act does not, in the opinion of this court, disentitle the Purchasing Dealers to purchase these six goods at concessional rate against 'C' forms in the course of inter-State Trade or Commerce. Since the first contention of the State that the registration of such Purchasing Dealer itself is liable to be treated as void is a misconceived contention, this second contention raised for denial of the concessional rate of tax to such Purchasing Dealers is equally unacceptable. The scope of Section 48A is very limited and does not empower the said Commissioner to issue such general Circulars or any Guidelines to the lower Authorities in the State. Besides thus, being without jurisdiction and any statutory support, the impugned Circular dated 31.5.2018 is also passed in violation of principles of natural justice. There is no justification for creating any invidious classification by creating categories of Dealers, arbitrarily, in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution as has been done in the impugned Circular - The mere target to achieve more revenue, as has been mentioned in the impugned Circular itself, also cannot be a reason to sustain such Circulars and tax collection, without authority of law is a bane under the Constitutional Scheme and therefore, we are of the opinion that the learned Commissioner has exceeded his jurisdiction to issue such a Circular. The intention of the Legislature, by the series of Amendments, cannot be inferred in the manner canvassed by the learned counsel for the Revenue so as to defeat the right of the Purchasing Dealers to purchase at the concessional rate against Declaration in 'C' form even the said six commodities. No law has prohibited any such Dealers, who purchase the six commodities to start even selling these six commodities and therefore, the Respondent/Assessee like M/s.Ramco Cements Limited can even sell any of those six commodities, subject to their complying with other licensing requirements, if any. Therefore, their act of purchasing any of these six commodities under CST Act cannot be adversely affected. Thus, if a Dealer has a right to sell as well the restricted six items under CST Act, one fails to understand as to how their right to purchase those goods at present time under the existing Registration Certificates can be taken away merely because they are not selling those goods. If sale of the goods was the only criteria of registration under the CST Act, the consequent amendments would not have allowed concessional rate of tax for purchase of those six commodities for user in activities like Mining or Telecommunication Networks, where no such resale or use in manufacturing is involved - such a right is equally available to other industries like Cement Industries and the same cannot be denied to them. That would result in an invidious classification in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which is neither envisaged nor is called for. The Appellant State and the Revenue Authorities are directed not to restrict the use of 'C' Forms for the inter-State purchases of six commodities by the Respondent/Assessees and other registered Dealers at concessional rate of tax and they are further directed to permit Online downloading of such Declaration in 'C' Forms to such Dealers - The Circular letter of the Commissioner dated 31.5.2018 stands quashed and set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the intra-court Writ Appeals filed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. 2. Interpretation of the CST Act, 1956 post-GST regime. 3. Eligibility of Assessees to use 'C' forms for purchasing six specified goods at a concessional rate. 4. Validity of the Circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on 31.05.2018. 5. Compliance with principles of natural justice in issuing the impugned Circular. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Intra-Court Writ Appeals: The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes filed intra-court Writ Appeals against the order of the learned Single Judge who quashed the impugned communication dated 31.05.2018 and consequential Notices. The Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions filed by the Assessees, quashing the communication that denied the benefit of purchasing HSD Diesel and Natural Gas at a concessional rate using 'C' forms. 2. Interpretation of the CST Act, 1956 Post-GST Regime: The Revenue contended that post-GST, the CST Act, 1956 was restricted to six commodities, and Assessees engaged in manufacturing activities covered by GST laws were not entitled to purchase these commodities at concessional rates using 'C' forms. The Assessees argued that their registration under the CST Act continued to be valid post-GST, and they were entitled to purchase the specified goods at concessional rates. The court agreed with the Assessees, stating that the CST Act's scope was not entirely amended, and the right to purchase at concessional rates using 'C' forms continued under Section 8(3)(b) of the Act. 3. Eligibility of Assessees to Use 'C' Forms for Purchasing Six Specified Goods: The court held that the Assessees' right to purchase the six specified goods at concessional rates using 'C' forms continued unabated post-GST. The court rejected the Revenue's contention that the Assessees' registration under the CST Act was void post-GST. The court emphasized that the CST Act allowed registration for purchasing goods in inter-State trade or commerce, independent of the liability to pay tax under the Act. 4. Validity of the Circular Issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on 31.05.2018: The court found the impugned Circular dated 31.05.2018 to be without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice. The Circular created an arbitrary classification of Dealers, allowing certain categories to use 'C' forms while denying the same benefit to others, such as Cement Industries. The court held that the Circular was not supported by statutory authority and was issued without affording an opportunity of hearing to the Assessees. 5. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice in Issuing the Impugned Circular: The court noted that the impugned Circular was issued without giving the Assessees an opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that any quasi-judicial order with civil consequences must be passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. Conclusion: The court dismissed the Writ Appeals filed by the Revenue, affirming the view of the learned Single Judge and other High Courts. The court directed the Revenue Authorities not to restrict the use of 'C' forms for inter-State purchases of the six specified commodities at concessional rates and to permit the online downloading of such Declaration in 'C' forms. The impugned Circular dated 31.05.2018 and consequential Notices were quashed.
|
