9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 952X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duction 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 Act which the petitioner Company has called in question in the instant writ petitions. However, in this regard, 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 pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orrectness of notification No.F-10/101/2006/CT/V/(94) dated 31-10-2006 (Annexure P-2) issued by the State of Chhattisgarh in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15-B & 72(i)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Chhattisgarh VAT Act') read with sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, 'the CST Act') incorporating the amended provisions of Section 8 (5) of the CST Act, branding the same as unconstitutional and invalid in law. Petitioner M/s. Jayaswal Neco Industries Limited in WPT No. 122/2016 has also sought for quashment of the assessment order dated 18-6-2010 (Annexure P-3) issued for the assessment year 2006-2007, as with respect to other assessment orders, appeals are already filed. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a Company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of iron and steel products and was registered with the Commercial Tax Department. The petitioner Company was exempted from payment of taxes including Central Sales Tax under the notification dated 3-6-1993 from 22-9-1996 till 21-9-2010, however, the benefit of exemption was later extended till 21-9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tating inter alia that though the benefit of exemption from payment of taxes including Central Sales Tax was granted to the petitioner Company under the notification dated 3-6-1993 which was applicable up to 21-9-2010 and extended till 21-9-2019, but by virtue of notification dated 31-10-2006, exemption would be applicable only upon fulfillment of conditions prescribed under Section 8 (4) of the CST Act. It has been further stated that the decision of the Bombay High Court in the matter of Prism Cement Limited and another v. State of Maharashtra and others [2012] 54 VST 104 (Bom) on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner Company, is not applicable to the facts of the present case and it has no force and statutory power has been exercised by the Government which is strictly in accordance with law. As such, both the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 5. Mr. M.P. Devnath and Mr. Neelabh Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Company, would submit that the issue involved in the writ petitions now stands conclusively decided by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of The State of Maharashtra and others v. Prism Cement Limited and another 2025 S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. It has been observed in paragraph 17 as under:- "17. The aforesaid amendment regulates the power conferred upon the State Government under Section 8 (5) of the CST to grant exemption/partial exemption from tax to dealers on inter-State sales, trade and commerce subject to the fulfilment of the requirements laid down in sub-Section (4) of the Section 8 i.e., of production of Form 'C' and 'D' as the case may be in contrast to the absolute power of exemption/partial exemption that was permitted under the unamended Act. It is worth noting that the aforesaid amendment is prospective in nature and has been made applicable with effect from 11.05.2002 and is not applicable from any anterior date or to transactions prior to the aforesaid date. In other words, the absolute power initially conferred under Section 8 (5) upon the State Government to grant exemption/partial exemption of tax in connection with inter-State sale, trade or commerce with the amendment was circumscribed and restricted to the fulfilment of the requirement of Section 8 (4) of the CST Act which prescribes for the submission of Form 'C' and 'D' only w.e.f. 11.05.2002. However, such restrictions are prospective in nat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., after the Finance Act of 2002. Accordingly, in our opinion the appeal lacks merit and hence dismissed." 10. 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 as per the notification dated 3-6-1993 and as per the decision of the Supreme Court, the amendment made in Section 8 (5) of the CST Act making the production of C-Form mandatory for availing benefit of tax exemption wold apply with effect from 10-5-2002 and the amended provision of Section 8 (5) with effect from 10-5-2002 would apply prospectively to the transactions in respect of which Eligibility Certificate are issued subsequently, as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. It is made clear that notification dated 31-10-2006 would not apply to the petitioner Company as they had already been exempted with effect from 22-9-1996, as the exemption was available up to 21-9-2019 and now, on coming into force of the GST regime up to 30-6-2017. In that view of the matter, notification dated 31-10-2006, would not apply to the petitioner Comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
