9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 895X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15-B & 72(i)(b) of the Chhattisgarh VAT Act read with sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the CST Act incorporating the amended provisions of Section 8 (5) of the CST Act by which filing / production of C-Form has been made mandatory for availing the benefit of exemption under Section 8 (5) of the CST Act which the petitioner Company has called in question in the instant writ petitions. Decision of the Bombay High Court in Prism Cement Limited [2013 (7) TMI 668 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] was assailed before the Supreme Court by the State of Maharashtra in Prism Cement Limited's case [2025 (2) TMI 475 - SUPREME COURT] in which their Lordships have considered the issue with respect to Section 8 (5) of the CST Act clarifying the legal position and held that such restrictions are prospective in nature and would not apply retrospectively to cases where absolute exemption was permitted much prior to the amendment. Reverting to the facts of the case in light of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that the petitioner Company has been granted absolute exemption from the tax liability on fulfillment of certain conditions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equirement of Section 8 (4) of the CST Act and consequently, after the amendment, the assessee was required to furnish declaration in Form C to avail the benefit of exemption. Consequently, the State Government issued notification dated 31-10-2006 incorporating the requirement as mentioned in the amended provisions contained in Section 8 (5) of the CST Act in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15-B & 72(i)(b) of the Chhattisgarh VAT Act read with sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the CST Act. The petitioner was denied the benefit of exemption in absence of Form C for the relevant assessment year and assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer which was unsuccessfully assailed in first appeal and thereafter in second appeal leading to filing of the instant writ petition seeking clarification of notification No.F-10/101/2006/CT/ V/(94) dated 31-10-2006 (Annexure P-4). It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner Company was granted the benefit of exemption by notification dated 07-11-1997 in the year 1996 for a period of 14 years and the benefit of exemption so granted was the vested right as on 1996 which has been extended up to 17-04-2013 and vested rig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 7. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the notification dated 07-11-1997, the petitioner Company was granted exemption as the petitioner Company is said to have invested more than Rs. 550 crores in Integrated Steel Plant and the benefit of exemption started from 07-11-1997, thereafter on 10- 5-2002, Section 8 (5) of the CST Act was amended making fulfillment of Section 8 (4) of the CST Act (production of C-Form) mandatory for availing the benefit of exemption under Section 8 (5) and pursuant to the notification dated 10-5-2002 making production of C-Form mandatory, the State Government issued notification dated 31-10-2006 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15-B & 72(i)(b) of the Chhattisgarh VAT Act read with sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the CST Act incorporating the amended provisions of Section 8 (5) of the CST Act by which filing / production of C-Form has been made mandatory for availing the benefit of exemption under Section 8 (5) of the CST Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 (5) of the CST Act without revoking the Entitlement Certificate without notice or opportunity of hearing, and observed as under: - "28. Moreover, the law is settled that if a substantive right has accrued to a person, it cannot be taken away unilaterally without notice or an opportunity of hearing to the said person. Thus, after the amendment of Section 8 (5), the Government was not authorised to pass a unilateral order affecting the rights of the assessee-respondent for claiming absolute exemption from payment of tax. The assessee-respondent was not given any notice either cancelling the Eligibility Certificate or the Entitlement Certificate. Therefore, without revoking the said certificates, the substantive right which had accrued to the assessee-respondent thereunder continues to subsist and does not get impacted by the subsequent amendment of Section 8 (5) inasmuch as there is nothing in the amended provision which provides for taking away such a right granted to the assessee-respondent. 29. The State Government while applying the aforesaid amended Section 8 (5) was not justified in taking away such a right accrued to the assessee-respondent on mere prospective amendmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
