Court schedules proceedings on petitioner's CST refund claim citing CST Act provisions. Advocate arguments noted for final disposal.

The court scheduled further proceedings to address the petitioner's claim for a refund of excess Central Sales Tax paid due to non-issuance of C-forms, citing provisions of the CST Act and previous court decisions as the basis for their argument. The court noted the arguments presented by the petitioner's advocate and directed service of notice to the respondents for final disposal on a specified date.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Refund of excess Central Sales Tax paid by the petitioner before respondent No. 3.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a limited company and a public sector undertaking, entered into a "Gas Sale and Purchase Agreement" with M/s. Petronet LNG Ltd. to purchase "Regasified Liquefied Natural Gas." Before the introduction of the Goods and Service Tax regime, the petitioner procured goods at a concessional rate of 2% against the production of C-forms as per the Central Sales Tax Act and the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act. With the GST regime, certain commodities continued to be governed by State Value Added Tax laws. Due to non-issuance of C-forms, Petronet charged tax at the full rate of 15% on inter-State sales to the petitioner, which the petitioner claims is contrary to Section 8 of the CST Act and previous court decisions.

The petitioner sought a refund of the excess amount of CST paid before respondent No. 3. The prayers included requesting the court to issue a Writ of Mandamus for sanctioning the refund claim, directing the respondents to adjudicate the refund application, and providing ad-interim relief. The petitioner's advocate referred to previous court decisions, such as J.K.Cement Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat, and argued that the non-availment of the refund is contrary to established law.

The court noted the arguments presented by the petitioner's advocate and scheduled a notice for final disposal returnable on a specific date. The learned Assistant Government Pleader waived service of notice on behalf of respondent No. 1, while direct service to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was permitted, including service through e-mode on the official e-mail ID.

In conclusion, the judgment revolves around the petitioner's claim for a refund of excess Central Sales Tax paid due to non-issuance of C-forms, citing provisions of the CST Act and previous court decisions as the basis for their argument. The court has scheduled further proceedings to address the petitioner's refund application comprehensively.

---