2020 (9) TMI 1109 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Dealers entitled to 'C' Forms for interstate diesel purchases under Central Sales Tax Act.

M/s. Raymix Concrete India Private Limited Versus The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, The Assistant Commissioner (ST), The Joint Commissioner (ST)

The court held that dealers were entitled to 'C' Forms for purchasing High Speed Diesel from suppliers in other states under the Central Sales Tax Act, ... Benefit of concessional rate of tax - difficulty in obtaining 'C' forms - purchase of High Speed Diesel from suppliers in other States - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is entitled to the inclusion of ‘High Speed Diesel Oil’ as a commodity in the registration certificate. The issue involved in the Writ Petition is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in M/S. DHANDAPANI CEMENT PRIVATE LTD., M/S. TERU MURUGAN BLUE METAL VERSUS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER & COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (ST) TERRITORIAL, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) [2019 (2) TMI 1850 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], wherein it was held that The Petitioner in these Writ Petitions has stated on affidavit that it is unable to download the ‘C’ forms from the websites as the same stand blocked from use. Upon enquiry with the Assessing Authorities, they have been informed that the benefit of the decision in M/S. THE RAMCO CEMENTS LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (CT) [2018 (10) TMI 1529 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] Ltd can be extended only to those dealers in that are party to the decision. This stand is unacceptable in so far as the decision of this Court as well as other High Courts, one of which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court, are decisions in rem, applicable to all dealers that seek benefit thereunder, of course, in accordance with law. The State has, after the date of the above order, filed a Writ Appeal in THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI, THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (CT) VERSUS THE RAMCO CEMENTS LTD. AND THE STATE TAX OFFICER, THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (CS) (SYSTEMS) VERSUS SUNDARAM FASTENERS LIMITED [2020 (3) TMI 450 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] challenging the decision in the case of Ramco Cements that has been considered and dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. Ms.Dhanamadhri, further agrees that there is complete identity on facts and in law in the matter before me as well as in the matter considered earlier. I thus reiterate the view taken in the above matter. Petition allowed. Issues:Interpretation of entitlement to 'C' Forms for purchase of High Speed Diesel from suppliers outside Tamil Nadu under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.Analysis:The judgment involved the interpretation of the entitlement to 'C' Forms for purchasing High Speed Diesel from suppliers in other states under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The court referred to a previous decision in a similar case and held that dealers could avail of the concessional benefit of tax for such purchases. The court emphasized that the benefit of the concessional rate applied to dealers who purchased High Speed Diesel from neighboring states through inter-state sales. The decision was supported by references to similar rulings by other courts, including the Supreme Court, which confirmed the benefit for the assessee. The court also highlighted that the decision was applicable to all dealers seeking the benefit, not just those party to the specific case. The court directed all Assessing Authorities in Tamil Nadu to apply the rationale of the decision to all pending assessments until any appeal or reversal occurred.Subsequent Proceedings:After the initial judgment, the State filed a Writ Appeal challenging the decision in the case of Ramco Cements, which was dismissed by a Division Bench. The State intended to file further appeal, but as of the prevailing date, the order dated 09.03.2020 stood. The Government Advocate agreed that there was complete identity in facts and law between the current matter and the previous case, leading to the reiteration of the view taken in the earlier judgment. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and necessary action was directed to be taken by the Department without any costs incurred.