2024 (4) TMI 812 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Entitlement for issuance of C-Forms post the introduction of G.S.T. regime for natural gas - entitlement for the refund of the amount already collected at full rate. Issuance of C-Forms Post G.S.T. Regime - HELD THAT - In CARPO POWER LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 2018 (4) TMI 146 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT , before the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, the issue was the challenge made by a Petitioner for being refused to be issued C-Forms for the natural gas purchased in an inter-state trade for generation of electricity from Gujarat to Haryana. The question before the Court whether after the amendment of the C.S.T. Act, the petitioner is entitled to be issued C' Forms in respect of the natural gas purchased in inter-state sale or not. The Hon ble Court came up to a conclusion on a combined reading of Section 2 (52) and 9 (2) of the C.G.S.T. Act, the inter-state sale of natural gas continues to be governed under the C.S.T. Act. Thereafter, it was held that since Section 8 of the CST Act, the Rule 12 of the CST (R T) Rules and Form-'C' have not undergone any amendment, the Department cannot put any restriction on the usage of 'C' forms only in view of the amendment of definition of goods in the CST Act. In TATA STEEL LIMITED, JAMSHEDPUR AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS 2019 (9) TMI 524 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT , a prayer was sought to direct issuance of C-Forms with respect to an inter-state purchase. A Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand, made an exhaustive analysis on the aspect of issuance of these statutory forms in light of the increasing litigation for the grant and denial of the same. On a combined reading of the C.S.T Act, 1956 and the C.S.T. (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, it was opined that the C-Forms have to be given to the registered dealer when the goods in respect of which the C-Form is used, are included in the registration certificate; when necessary, application amount is paid and when there is compliance to the rules prescribed. Furthermore, the Court also observed that with every state power , there vests a duty and with every duty , a right flows to the assessee /applicant of the C-Form. Thereafter, it was also noted that there are certain does and do nots for the state while grant or refusal of the same. Receipt of C-Forms After Assessment - HELD THAT - A C-Form is essentially issued by the seller of goods to the buyer for the purpose of effecting a reduction on the rate of tax - The role of Respondent No. 3, who is the seller within the State of Andhra Pradesh is that he works as an agent of the Government to collect the tax from the buyer. The buyer who purchases such goods from Andhra Pradesh, uses them as a raw material in manufacturing the final product in the other State is to have a concessional rate of tax of 2% under CST Act on submission of statutory C-Forms. It is not out of place to mention that the statutory C-Forms can be submitted even after completion of the assessment by the seller. The claim cannot be rejected on the score that C-Forms were presented after the assessment. The only obligation on the part of the seller is to prove sufficient case for the late submission of C-Forms. Refund of the Tax Deposited - HELD THAT - The Petitioner is entitled to have concessional rate of tax @ 2% on the purchases made from the Respondent No. 3. The reason for non-submission of statutory C-Forms at relevant point of time is due to the confusion created on the advent of GST regime, which came into force from 01.07.2017. The Authorities clarified about the position on reference to the judgment of Punjab Haryana High Court, which was confirmed by the Hon ble Apex Court. Thereafter, the Petitioner made their efforts for submission of C-Forms to get refund. Record further shows that the Petitioner submitted C-Forms to Respondent No. 2, which was returned with an endorsement directing them to submit the C-Forms through Respondent No. 3 and then have credit notes from Respondent No. 3, for refund of the amount - Be that as it may, during the pendency of the present petition, Respondent No. 3 has submitted C-Forms which were rejected by the Department stating that they have paid the full tax on the score that they could not get C-Forms. Petitioner having paid the full tax is entitled to the eligible refund. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 are directed to forthwith process the refund claim of the Petitioner for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19 based on statutory C-Forms of the Petitioner and upon scrutinising the genuineness of C-Forms in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders on merits within a period of four weeks of the receipt of a copy of this Order - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Issuance of C-Forms Post G.S.T. Regime.
2. Refund of the Tax Deposited.

Summary:

1. Issuance of C-Forms Post G.S.T. Regime:
The case concerns the issuance of C-Forms for natural gas purchased by the Petitioner from Respondent No. 3 after the introduction of the GST regime. The Petitioner argued that despite the GST Act's advent, they were entitled to a concessional rate of tax under the CST Act, 1956. The Court cited multiple precedents, including Carpo Power Ltd. v. State of Haryana, Tata Steel Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand, and others, which upheld the issuance of C-Forms for specific goods like natural gas, even post-GST. It was determined that the statutory provisions under the CST Act and the CST (R&T) Rules, 1957, allow for the issuance of C-Forms for inter-state purchases, and the Petitioner satisfied the conditions for the same.

2. Refund of the Tax Deposited:
The Petitioner sought a refund of the excess CST paid at 14.5% instead of the concessional rate of 2%, arguing that the confusion during the GST transition led to the higher payment. The Court referenced the Gujarat High Court's decision in Udaipur Cement Works Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, which allowed refunds to buyers who bore the tax burden, emphasizing the principle against unjust enrichment. The Court directed Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 to process the refund claims based on the statutory C-Forms submitted by the Petitioner and scrutinize their genuineness according to the law. The Court clarified that once the refund is processed, Respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to claim any such refund for the said period.

The petition was allowed, and Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 were instructed to process the refund claim within four weeks, with no costs awarded. Pending applications were closed.