9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subject matter of the instant case, is not an intra-state sale but is an inter-state sale and State of U.P. lacks jurisdiction to impose tax (VAT), allowed the bunch of writ petitions with all consequential benefits quashed the impugned order and directed the State Government to refund the tax realized to the assessees expeditiously. Thus the State Government also in the present case is directed to refund the tax realized to the assesses, expeditiously. - Writ Petition No. 3348 (M/B) of 2013 - - - Dated:- 26-4-2013 - Rajiv Sharma And Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi,JJ. ORDER Heard Sri Vivek Tankha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Altaf Mansoor, Counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.P. Srivastava, Additional Chief Standing Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- Petitioner, who is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, is registered under Central Sales Tax Act and U.P. Trade Tax/U.P. Value Added Tax Act. He is engaged in the business of manufacturing Urea Fertilizer and for that purpose, natural gas has been used for generating energy to their furnaces. The petitioner purchases Natural Gas from Reliance Industries Limited for using it for manufacturing Urea Fertilizer. According to the petitioner, a licence was given to Reliance Industries Ltd. by the Central Government, whereby he was permitted to market and sell the petroleum and natural gas extracted from the KG basin to various customers and a part of the product was to be given to the Government of India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith regard to the sale of natural gas to the petitioner in proportion to the participating interest of the sellers. The Commercial Tax Department issued a notice to Reliance Industries Ltd with respect to the inter state sale of natural gas in Uttar Pradesh to the petitioner and like consumers, treating the sale within the State of U.P., therefore eligible to tax under U.P. Vat Act. On that basis, on 25.1.2010, an ex parte provisional assessment order for the period April, 2009 to March, 2010 was passed by the Assessing Authority, holding therein that sale made by the Reliance India Ltd. to its various customers including the petitioner were intrastate sales and liable to tax under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act. The above ex parte provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al hearing. According to the petitioner, as the Commercial Tax Authorities at Shahjahanpur had restrained the petitioner from issuing Form-C in pursuant to Central Sales Tax Act, to the suppliers of Natural Gas i.e. respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 and as also on the apprehension that as per the statement given by Reliance India Ltd. in the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioner without being in default would be charged VAT, filed a writ petition No. 1346 of 2012 (M/B) before this Court and the same was connected to the aforesaid writ petition No. 6281 (M/B) of 2010 filed by the Reliance India Ltd. Ultimately, after hearing the parties' counsel and perusing the evidence on record, a common judgment in writ petition No. 6281 of 2010 along w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court was in rem and not in personam whereby this Court has specifically held that the State of U.P. has neither jurisdiction nor statutory right to impose VAT on such sale transactions, which are not an interstate sale but is an intra-state sale. He submits that Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Lucknow has refunded VAT amount to M/s IFFCO which is similarly situated to the petitioner but rejected the plea of the petitioner to refund VAT to him. He further submits that Reliance Industries Ltd., NIKO (NECO) Ltd. and M/s B.P. Exploration (Alpha) Ltd. being the sellers of natural gas and the gas received by the petitioner being subject matter of the decision of this Court dated 7.9.2012 and as such, no artificial differentiation can be cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 008) 17 SCC 222 : Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh Versus Hind Lamps Ltd. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records It is not in dispute that instant writ petitioners are also purchasing natural gas from Reliance Industries Ltd. and VAT was charged by the State of U.P., which was assailed by the Reliance Industries Ltd. by filing writ petition No. 6281 (M/B) of 2010. Subsequently, the instant writ petitioners have also assailed the VAT imposed by the State of U.P. All the matters were taken up together with by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and vide order dated 7.9.2012, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, after recording a finding that the sale transaction which is the subject matter of the insta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
