Bombay High Court
Kalyani Technofirge Ltd. And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And 2 ... on 7 February, 2023
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, Abhay Ahuja
1 1. WP 3028.19.doc
JPP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3028 OF 2019
Kalyani Technoforge Ltd. and Anr. ... Petitioners
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Rohan P. Shah with Shriraj Dhruv, Srisabari Rajan, Bhanu Shree
Jain and Keya Raval i/b. Dhru & Co. for the Petitioners
Mr. Ranjeev Carvalho i/b, Ms. Sabeena Mahadik and Pankaj
Uttaradhi for the Respondent No.2
Mr. D.B. Deshmukh with Mr. Ashutosh Mishra i/b. Jitendra B.
Mishra for Resolution No.3
Mr. V.A. Sonpal, Special Counsel with Mr. Milind More, Addl.G.P.
for the Respondent - State
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR &
ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.
DATE : 07 FEBRUARY 2023
P.C. :-
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The matter was heard on 3 February 2023 and it was
adjourned at the request of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to
take instructions as we find that the order impugned in this Petition
passed by the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority dated 3 October
2 1. WP 3028.19.doc
2019 does not fasten any liability on the Petitioner. After
considering the conspectus, the Tribunal has observed thus :-
" We have considered the relevant facts, legal provisions
and judgments and come to a conclusion that at
Manesar Branch of the appellant, the goods are not
subjected to any manufacturing process. We have not
been shown on consideration of what facts, law and
judgments the Haryana Excise and Taxation department
has concluded that the transactions in question are
manufactured and the sales are local sales. We are
therefore no impressed by this circumstance. We are
also no inclined to go into the question whether mala
fides could be imputed to the appellant. In the
circumstances of the case, the order of interest does not
deserve to be disturbed. The appellant claims that it has
paid VAT to the tune of Rs.3,78,89,499/- to the State of
Haryana. In the view that we have taken, if indeed the
appellant has paid the above mentioned amount as VAT
to the State of Haryana, after ascertaining the exact VAT
paid to it, the State of Haryana must in terms of Section
22(1B) of the CST Act transfer the said amount to the
State to which it is due. We order accordingly."
Therefore, the direction is to the Respondent - State of Haryana. The
Central Tribunal, proceeding on the basis that the Petitioner has paid
the amount of VAT to the State of Haryana has left it to the
Respondent - State of Maharashtra to collect the same from the State
of Haryana. Therefore, under the impugned order passed, there is no
liability on the Petitioner. Thus, we find that the debate on the legal
issue in this Petition is academic.
3 1. WP 3028.19.doc
3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
reasoning adopted by the Tribunal in the impugned order may be
applied against the Petitioner in the other years of assessment. This
however is a future contingency. The same can be redressed by a
clarification. It is clarified that if an adverse order is passed on the
subject against the Petitioner in future, and the Petitioner seeks to
challenge the same, the issues raised in the Petition are kept open
including the issue of binding nature or otherwise of the
reasoning/ratio of the Central Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on the
State Tribunal/ Authorities.
4. With this clarification, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
5. Needless to state that if the parties have any claims, other
than the one under challenge in this Petition, it is open to the parties
to take such steps as are warranted in law and on facts.
ABHAY AHUJA, J. NITIN JAMDAR, J.
