Court allows writ petitions, orders refund of excess tax collected, emphasizes fairness in tax processes

M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. & Anr Versus State of West Bengal & Ors., Usha Martin Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors., Ambey Mining Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal& Ors., BGR Mining and Infra Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. With BKB Transport Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. & Anr Versus State of West Bengal & Ors., Usha Martin Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors., Ambey Mining Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs ... Issues Involved:
1. Locus standi of the petitioners to file the writ petitions.
2. Mandatory or directory nature of filing "C" Forms with returns.
3. Legality of the impugned assessment order refusing to accept "C" Forms.
4. Entitlement to concessional rate of tax.
5. Justification for refusal of tax refund by the State Government of West Bengal.
6. Impact of compelling extraordinary circumstances on tax refund.
7. Practicality of claiming refund from IOCL instead of the State Government.
8. Legality of withholding tax refund by citing consent and acquiescence.
9. Compliance with instructions from the Government of India.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Locus Standi of the Petitioners
The court determined that the petitioners, as purchasing dealers of HSD oil, are "persons aggrieved" and have the locus standi to file these writ petitions. The court noted that the petitioners were deprived of their legitimate right to purchase HSD oil at a concessional rate and to get a refund of the excess tax collected by the State Government of West Bengal through IOCL.

Issue 2: Filing of "C" Forms
The court held that filing of "C" Forms along with the return by the selling dealer is directory, not mandatory. The court emphasized that there is no statutory bar preventing the filing of "C" Forms belatedly during the assessment proceedings. The refusal to accept "C" Forms submitted during the assessment was deemed arbitrary and unjustified.

Issue 3: Legality of the Impugned Assessment Order
The court found the impugned assessment order to be bad in law to the extent that it denied the concessional rate of tax to the petitioners. The court noted that the assessing officer had recorded the submission of "C" Forms but did not provide a valid reason for their non-acceptance, making the refusal arbitrary and unreasonable.

Issue 4: Entitlement to Concessional Rate of Tax
The court confirmed that the petitioners had fulfilled the conditions under Section 8(1) of the CST Act and were entitled to purchase HSD oil at a concessional rate. The submission of "C" Forms during the assessment proceedings was sufficient to meet the statutory requirements.

Issue 5: Justification for Refusal of Tax Refund
The court held that the State Government of West Bengal was unjustified in refusing the refund on the grounds that the petitioners should claim it from IOCL. The court emphasized that the excess tax collected was already deposited with the State Government, and the petitioners had no control over IOCL's actions.

Issue 6: Impact of Compelling Extraordinary Circumstances
The court recognized that the delay in submitting "C" Forms was due to compelling extraordinary circumstances beyond the petitioners' control. The court concluded that the State Government's refusal to refund the excess tax was legally unjustified and ignored the bona fide reasons for the delay.

Issue 7: Practicality of Claiming Refund from IOCL
The court found it impractical and impossible for IOCL to refund the excess tax to the petitioners without the State Government first refunding the tax to IOCL. The court held that the State Government's action of withholding the refund was arbitrary and amounted to unjust enrichment.

Issue 8: Withholding Tax Refund by Citing Consent and Acquiescence
The court ruled that the State Government's action of withholding the tax refund based on consent or acquiescence was not legally justified. The court noted that the State Government had allowed concessional rates before and after the disputed period, making the refusal during the disputed period arbitrary.

Issue 9: Compliance with Government of India Instructions
The court found that the State Government's action was contrary to the instructions issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, and Department of Revenue. The court held that the State Government's refusal to refund the excess tax was arbitrary, unreasonable, and unfair.

Conclusion:
The writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned assessment order was set aside to the extent of refusal to accept the "C" Forms. The court directed the State Government of West Bengal to process and refund the excess tax collected, along with interest, either directly to the petitioners or to IOCL for onward refund to the petitioners. The court emphasized the need for fairness and justice in tax collection and refund processes.