Allowed

M/S. J.K. Cement Limited v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC18 Feb 2019CW/2440/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the Rajasthan High Court allowed a writ petition under the satisfaction that Parliament retained high speed diesel under GST, binding the respondents to issue 'C' Forms for interstate mining purchases. The petitioners were entitled to refund or adjustment of excess tax paid, subject to a pending division bench appeal.

What did the court decide?

Respondents ordered to issue 'C' Forms for high speed diesel procured for mining; petitioners entitled to refund/adjustment of excess tax within twelve weeks.

M/S. J.K. Cement Limited Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR.

¶3

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2440/2018.

¶5

M/s. J.K. Cement Limited

¶6

Having its registered office at Kamla Tower, Kanpur

¶7

Unit- J.K. Cement Works, Nimbahera, District-Chittorgarh

¶8

Unit- J.K. Cement Works, Mangrol, District-Chittorgarh

¶9

Unit- J.K. Cement Works, Gotan, District-Nagaur

¶10

Unit- J.K. White Cement Works, Gotan, District-Nagaur

¶11

Through its Dy. General Manager Sjhri Pravin Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Keshav Dev Sharma, aged about 54 years.

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary Department Of Finance, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶15

The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶16

The Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Circle- Nimbahera, Chittorgarh.

¶17

Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.

¶18

The Under Secretary (St-II), Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, State Tax Division, New Delhi.

¶19

----Respondents

¶20

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Niraj Kumar Jain. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akshat Verma. Ms. Apoorva Mathur on behalf of Mr. Sanjeet Purohit.

¶21

(2 of 3)

¶22

[CW-2440/2018]

¶23

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶24

Order

¶25

18/02/2019

¶26

It is stated at bar by both the learned counsels that the issue involved in the present writ petition has been decided by a judgment passed in the case of Carpo Power Limited Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. , decided on 28.03.2018, SBCWP No. 29437/2017.

¶27

The said judgment has attained finality as the SLP preferred against the same bearing number 20572/2018 has been dismissed after hearing both the parties by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 13.08.2018.

¶28

It is further admitted at bar that relying upon the aforesaid decision, a bunch of the writ petitions have been decided by this Court with the leading case being SBCWP No. 5506/2018 (Hindustan Zinc Limited Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.) on 18.05.2018 and it has been held as under:-

¶29

“In the present case too, the Parliament has retained high speed diesel along with petroleum crude, motor spirit, natural gas,aviation turbine fuel and alcoholic liquor for human consumption crude which have been specifically mentioned in Section 9 of the GST Act while defining the ‘goods’. Besides, the registration under Section 7(2) of the Act is still valid and has not been cancelled and can be cancelled only within the parameters of Section 4 of the CST Act. Hence, this Court finds that it is obligatory duty of the respondents to issue ‘C’ form to the petitioner – company and any failure on the part of the respondents to do so is without any authority of law. Thus, this Court finds nothing to distinguish the case

¶30

(3 of 3)

¶31

[CW-2440/2018]

¶32

of the petitioners herein from that of the petitioner in the case of Carpo Power Limited (supra).

¶33

Accordingly, the present writ petitions are allowed in the same terms as Corpo Power Limited (supra). It is held that the respondents are liable to issue C' Forms in respect of the High Speed Diesel procured for mining purposes through interstate trade. In the event of the petitioners having had to pay any amount on account of the respondents wrongful refusal to issue C' Forms the petitioners shall be entitled to refund and/or adjustment of the same from the concerned authorities who collected the excess tax. The concerned authorities shall process such a claim within twelve weeks of the same being made by the petitioners in writing and the petitioners furnishing the requisite documents/form.”

¶34

Learned counsel for the Revenue states that although an appeal has been preferred before the Division Bench against the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in SBCWP No. 5506/2018 (supra) but the Division Bench has refused to grant a stay and the order is being complied with.

¶35

In view of the above, taking into consideration the aforesaid, this writ petition is also allowed in the aforesaid terms, as noted above. However, the same would be subject to the decision of the appeal bearing number DBSAW No. 1361/2018 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Special Lime).

¶36

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J.

¶37

172-Mohan/-

M/S. J.K. Cement Limited v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. J.K. Cement Limited v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pragati Wife of Sh. Ravi Daughter of Shri Jitendra Kumar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Shyam Lal Boyat S/O Shri Neemura Boyat Vs the State of Rajasthan

Kartar Singh S/O Premsingh B/C Jat Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Sanwar Mal Agarwal Vs Export Credit Guar. Corp. of India Jod.

Brij Bala Vs State and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs the Prescribed Auth. Cum Tehsildar and Anr.