9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 1184 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxRefusal to issue Form-C - natural gas purchased by petiitoner in the course of inter- state trade or commerce and used by it for the generation of electricity - whether after the amendment of the CST Act, the petitioner is entitled to be issued C' Forms in respect of the natural gas purchased by it in the course of inter-state sales and used by it for the generation of electricity? - HELD THAT - Considering the consistent view of nine High Courts, including dismissal of special leave petitions by different Bench of this Court, and being satisfied about the exposition on the matters in issue by the High Court of Madras vide impugned judgment and order being a possible view, we decline to interfere in these special leave petitions. Notably, after the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court even the Union of India has chosen to act upon the said decision by issuing Office Memorandum dated 1st November, 2018 and directing all the States/Union Territories to follow the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. SLP dismissed.
Issues:
1. Upholding the view taken by Punjab and Haryana High Court in a specific case. 2. Analyzing the judgment of High Court of Jharkhand in another case. 3. Considering the decisions of multiple High Courts on the same issue. 4. Declining to interfere in special leave petitions based on consistent views. 5. Noting the Union of India's action following a specific high court decision. 6. Dismissing the special leave petitions and disposing of pending applications. Analysis: 1. The Supreme Court, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari, upheld the view taken by Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of 'Carpo Power Limited vs. State of Haryana & Ors.' The Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (C) filed in this regard on 13th August, 2018. 2. The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi's judgment in 'Tata Steel Limited vs. State of Jharkhand' was also considered by the Supreme Court. The Court found this judgment exhaustive and addressing all the points raised by the petitioner(s) in the special leave petitions under consideration. 3. The Supreme Court acknowledged that nine High Courts, including the High Court of Rajasthan, had taken a similar view on the issue at hand. The Court noted that even a different Bench of the Supreme Court had affirmed the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan by dismissing Special Leave Petition (C) No.27529 of 2019 and connected cases. 4. Based on the consistent views of multiple High Courts and the dismissal of special leave petitions by the Supreme Court in various instances, the Court decided not to interfere in the present special leave petitions. The Court was satisfied with the exposition on the matters in issue by the High Court of Madras and deemed it a possible view. 5. The Court highlighted that the Union of India had acted upon the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court by issuing an Office Memorandum on 1st November, 2018. This memorandum directed all States/Union Territories to follow the view taken by Punjab and Haryana High Court, further solidifying the position taken by the Court. 6. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to reopen the entire matter and dismissed the special leave petitions. The Court also directed that all pending applications related to the case shall stand disposed of, bringing finality to the legal proceedings on the issue at hand.
|
