Disposed¶26

M/S Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax

Chhattisgarh HC24 Feb 2025TAXC/69/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh VAT Act Section 55(2) reference; Tribunal dismissal of Section 55(1) reference applications; substantial question of law; exemption notification No.F10/101/2006/CT/V/(94) Raipur dated 31-10-2006; C form; State of Maharashtra v. Prism Cement Limited (2025 SCC OnLine SC 298); direction to Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Tribunal, Raipur to refer question whether exemption benefit can be allowed without filing C form; tax cases disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Tribunal, Raipur to refer to the High Court, as a substantial question of law, whether the benefit of exemption can be allowed without filing C form. ¶26

M/S Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Tribunal, Raipur to refer to the High Court, as a substantial question of law, whether the benefit of exemption can be allowed without filing C form.

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether exemption can be allowed as per notification No.F10/101/2006/CT/V/(94) Raipur dated 31-10-2006 without filing C form.

¶22

Court's answer

In view of the Supreme Court's judgment in Prism Cement Limited's case (supra), the Tribunal is called upon to send the substantial question of law, namely whether exemption can be allowed as per notification No.F-10/101/2006/CT/V/(94) Raipur dated 31-10-2006 without filing C form.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

In exercise of power under Section 55(2) of the VAT Act, the learned Tribunal is called upon to make reference to the High Court on the question of law whether the benefit of exemption can be allowed without filing C form, and to refer it as a substantial question of law.

¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Batch of tax cases (TAXC No. 92 of 2022 and TAXC Nos. 6, 7, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73 and 74 of 2023) preferred under Section 55(2) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 calling for substantial questions of law against the orders of the Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Tribunal, Raipur dismissing the applicants' Section 55(1) reference applications on the ground that factual controversy already decided was raised. Question proposed for reference: whether exemption can be allowed as per notification No.F10/101/2006/CT/V/(94) Raipur dated 31-10-2006 without filing C form. Counsel for the applicants relied on the Supreme Court decision in State of Maharashtra and others v. Prism Cement Limited and another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 298). The Division Bench (Sanjay K. Agrawal and Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, JJ.), by order dated 25/02/2025, in view of Prism Cement Limited's case, called upon the Tribunal, in exercise of power under Section 55(2) of the VAT Act, to refer to the High Court the substantial question of law whether the benefit of exemption can be allowed without filing C form; all the tax cases/applications were disposed of accordingly.

¶1

Page 1 of 4

¶2

(Tax Case No.92/2022 and other connected cases)

¶3

Digitally signed by SISTA	2025:CGHC:9703-DB
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH A SISTA SOMAYAJULU SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.02.28 16:48:29 +0530	NAFR T BILASPUR
TAXC No. 92 of 2022
M/s Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd. Siltara, Raipur	---Applicant
versus
Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Raipur	---Non-applicant
TAXC No. 69 of 2023
M/s Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. Siltara, Raipur	---Applicant
Versus
Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Raipur	---Non-applicant
TAXC No. 72 of 2023
M/s Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd., Siltara Raipur	---Applicant
Versus
Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Raipur	---Non-applicant
TAXC No. 73 of 2023
M/s Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. Siltara, Raipur	---Applicant
Versus
Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Raipur

¶4

Page 2 of 4

¶5

(Tax Case No.92/2022 and other connected cases)

¶6

TAXC No. 70 of 2023	---Non-applicant
M/s Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd Siltara, Raipur	---Applicant
Versus
Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Raipur	---Non-applicant
TAXC No. 7 of 2023
M/s Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. Siltara, Raipur	---Applicant
Versus
Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Raipur	---Non-applicant
TAXC No. 6 of 2023
M/s Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. Siltara, Raipur	---Applicant
Versus
Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Raipur	---Non-applicant
TAXC No. 74 of 2023
M/s Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. Siltara, Raipur.	---Applicant
Versus
Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Raipur	---Non-applicant
TAXC No. 71 of 2023
M/s Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. Siltara, Raipur	---Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Page 3 of 4

¶9

(Tax Case No.92/2022 and other connected cases)

¶10

Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Raipur

¶11

--- Non-applicant

¶12

For Applicant in Tax Case No.92/2022 : Mr. Neelabh Dubey, Advocate. For Applicant in Tax Case Nos.6/2023, : Mr. M.P. Devnath, Mr. Neelabh Dubey and 7/2023, 69/2023, 70/2023, 71/2023, Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocates. 72/2023, 73/2023 and 74/2023 For Non-applicant / State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate.

¶13

Division Bench: - Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, JJ.

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

(25/02/2025)

¶16

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶17

The present applications have been preferred under Section 55(2) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the VAT Act’) calling for substantial questions of law against the orders passed by the Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Tribunal, Raipur, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the applications for referring the question of law filed by the applicants in the respective reference cases to the High Court.

¶18

Since common question of law and fact is involved in all the applications, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common order.

¶19

In the application preferred under Section 55(1) of the VAT Act, for referring the question of law, the Tribunal has rejected the application holding that the applicant has raised factual controversy in the reference application which is already decided as per factual matrix and legal aspect of the matter. However, the question in this batch of tax cases is,

¶20

Page 4 of 4

¶21

(Tax Case No.92/2022 and other connected cases)

¶22

whether exemption can be allowed as per notification No.F10/101/2006/CT/V/(94) Raipur dated 31-10-2006 without filing C form.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submit that though this issue has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra and others v. Prism Cement Limited and another 1, but the substantial question is required to be called from the Tribunal under Section 55(2) of the VAT Act.

¶24

Learned State counsel opposes the applications.

¶25

In view of the above-stated judgment of the Supreme Court in Prism Cement Limited’s case (supra), the Tribunal is called upon to send the substantial question of law, whether exemption can be allowed as per notification No.F-10/101/2006/CT/V/(94) Raipur dated 31-10-2006 without filing C form. Accordingly, in exercise of power under Section 55(2) of the VAT Act, the learned Tribunal is called upon to make reference to the High Court on the question of law, whether the benefit of exemption can be allowed without filing C form and refer it as substantial question of law.

¶26

With the aforesaid observation and direction, all these tax cases / applications stand disposed of.

¶27

Sd/Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE JUDGE

¶28

Soma

¶29

1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 298

M/S Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajhara Engineering Works Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Vs the Assessing Officer

M/S. Littleleaf Farmiculture Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Income Tax Officer

M/S Tripcos Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1)

M/S Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax

M/S Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax

M/S Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax