Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax & Anr. (Gujarat High Court)
The petitioner, a company engaged in oil marketing and registered under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (GVAT Act) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act), approached the Gujarat High Court under Articles 226 and 227 seeking to quash the Tribunal’s order dated 11.02.2025 in Misc. Application No. 33 of 2024. The petitioner requested permission to have statutory Form F, bearing No. 158386 dated 22.03.2008 and relating to transactions of ₹6,29,59,345/-, considered for claiming branch transfer benefits under the CST Act and GVAT Act.
For Assessment Year 2003–04, the petitioner was required to furnish Form F for goods transferred to its branches. Due to failure to submit the forms initially, the Assessing Officer issued an assessment order on 26.03.2008 raising a demand of ₹108,59,07,018/-. The petitioner’s first appeal under Section 73 of the GVAT Act was dismissed for non-payment of pre-deposit, but the Tribunal later directed a pre-deposit of ₹3,00,000 and remanded the matter.
Upon remand, the petitioner produced a portion of Form F before the First Appellate Authority, but the Authority did not consider it, leading to a second round of litigation. In Second Appeal No. 943 of 2010, the Tribunal again remanded the matter for consideration of partial Form F production.
In the third round, the First Appellate Authority accepted partial Form F production and allowed branch transfer claims of ₹63,99,41,576/-. Transactions worth ₹89,42,56,896/- were disallowed for non-production of Form F. The petitioner filed Second Appeal No. 1102 of 2016, producing additional forms. The Tribunal accepted further branch transfer claims of ₹25,43,15,300/- but rejected one transaction of ₹6,29,59,345/- on the ground that only a duplicate copy of Form F had been produced. The petitioner explained that the original form could not be furnished earlier due to shifting of premises.
The petitioner thereafter filed Misc. Application No. 33 of 2024 before the Tribunal for acceptance of the original Form F, but the Tribunal rejected the request, leading to the present writ petition.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the original Form F for ₹6,29,59,345/- had now been produced and verified. The petitioner also undertook that this would be its final claim for AY 2003–04 and that any remaining claims arising from non-production of other forms would not be pursued in the future. The petitioner agreed that dues relating to any unproduced forms would be paid in accordance with law.
The State relied on its affidavit-in-reply, confirming that the Assessing Officer had verified the genuineness of the Form F in question and did not dispute that the transaction was a branch transfer. The only issue throughout the litigation was piecemeal production of Form F over nearly 20 years.
The Court observed that under the CST Act, concessional or nil tax treatment is available upon production of Form C or Form F, and the assessing authority had not disputed the nature of the transaction or the validity of the form. The only ground for rejection was delayed production of the original form. Since the original Form F was now on record and had been verified by the authorities, and considering the petitioner’s undertaking to not raise further claims for the year, the Court found it appropriate to allow the form to be considered.
The Court relied on the respondent’s averments confirming authenticity of the form and noting the petitioner’s waiver of future claims for remaining unsubmitted forms. Given that the dispute was narrow and related solely to the production of Form F, the Court accepted the petitioner’s request.
The writ petition was allowed to the extent of directing the respondent to consider Form F No. 158386 dated 22.03.2008 for ₹6,29,59,345/-. The respondent was also directed to ascertain remaining transactions corresponding to unproduced forms, and the petitioner was directed to pay the related dues within 12 weeks. The petition was disposed of and rule made absolute to this limited extent.
Appearance: Mr. N.C. Shukla and Mr. Apurva Mehta for the petitioner; Ms. Shrunjal T. Shah, AGP, for the respondents.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT
