The Supreme Court held that the respondents are liable to issue `C’ Forms in respect of the natural gas purchased by the petitioner from the Oil Companies in Gujarat and used in the generation or distribution of electricity at its power plants in Haryana.
The Government of Tamilnadu filed the Special Leave Petition in the matter of allowing the HSD purchases, by issuing C Forms at the concessional rate of 2% and it has upheld the decisions of both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of Madras High Court.
The Punjab and Haryana in the case of Carpo Power Limited vs. State of Haryana held that Sale of Natural Gas by BPCL/HPCL from Gujarat to Petition in Haryana is inter-state sale in terms of Section 3(a) of CST Act, 1956. Natural Gas was included in the definition of Goods as per section 2(d) of CST Act, 1956 before amendment of 2017. Hence, Oil companies were liable to pay CST on sale of Natural Gas. The State Government was empowered to collect the CST.
The High Court held that petitioner was a registered dealer in terms of section 2(f) read with section 2(d) and 7(2) under CST Act, 1956. Definition of Goods even after amendment of 2017 also included “Natural Gas” as goods.
“Petitioner therefore fulfils all the requirements of section 7(2) of CST Act, 1956 and will be considered as registered dealer under CST Act,1956. Government took a stand that the petitioner is not engaged in re-selling these goods hence not entitled for Form “C”,” the High Court observed.
The three judge bench of Justice K.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and Krishna Murari ruled that in the event of the petitioner has had to pay the oil companies any amount on account of the respondent’s wrongful refusal to issue `C’ Forms the petitioner shall be entitled to refund and adjustment of the same from the concerned authorities who collected the excess tax through the oil companies or otherwise.
The Apex court after considering the consistent view of nine High Courts, including dismissal of special leave petitions by different Bench of Supreme Court, and being satisfied about the exposition on the matters in issue by the High Court of Madras vide impugned judgment and order being a possible view, the Apex Court decline to interfere in the special leave petitions.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. We welcome your comments at info@taxscan.in
