Case Law Details
Saint-Gobain India Private Limited Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court)
It appears from the materials on record that the writ applicant is seeking direction to the respondents to forthwith grant the refund of the amount of Rs.2,30,11,188/- collected from the writ applicant by the seller of natural gas and deposited with the respondent authorities under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short ‘the CST Act’).
It appears that despite the fact that natural gas continued to come within the ambit of the CST Act, after 1.7.2017, the authorities in the State of Rajasthan refused to issue “C” Form declarations of purchase of natural gas at concessional rate on the ground that after introduction of the GST regime, the registration certificates of the dealers such as the writ applicant, automatically stood cancelled and they were not eligible for making purchases of natural gas against C form declarations. In view of such stand taken by the authorities of the State of Rajasthan, the seller – Indian Oil Corporation Limited started raising invoice charging full tax @ 20% on sales of natural gas to the writ applicant. Since the authorities of the State of Rajasthan were not heeding to the request of the writ applicant as well as other similarly situated dealers, the writ applicant approached the Rajasthan High Court seeking a direction to the authorities of Rajasthan under the CST Act to issue C form declarations in respect of the natural gas required for use in the manufacturing of glass and consequential relief for the tax deposited at higher rate in the absence of C form being issued by the authorities of the State of Rajasthan. The Rajasthan High Court passed appropriate orders directing the CST Authorities at Rajasthan to issue “C” Form declarations in respect of the transactions in question. The respondents herein do not dispute the fact that against the “C” Form declarations, the tax collected from the writ applicant herein and deposited by the IOCL is required to be refunded. However, the stance of the respondents herein is that such refund can be made to the seller, i.e. the IOCL after its assessment for the period in question and not to the writ applicant who is not registered as the dealer in the State of Gujarat.
HC held that The burden of paying the amount in question was transferred by the respondents to the purchasers and, therefore, they were not entitled to get a refund. Only the persons on whom lay the ultimate burden to pay the amount would be entitled to get a refund of the same. The amount deposited towards the Fund was to be utilised for the development of sugarcane. If it is not possible to identify the persons on whom had the burden been placed for payment towards the Fund, the amount of the Fund can be utilised by the Government for the purpose for which the Fund Was created, namely, development of sugarcane. There is no question of refunding the amount to the respondents who had not eventually paid the amount towards the Fund. Doing so would virtually amount to allow the respondents unjust enrichment.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
