Page No.# 1/12 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 7981 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/12 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 24 October, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

                                                               Page No.# 1/12

GAHC010029322016




                                                          2025:GAU-AS:14118

                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                        Case No. : WP(C)/6760/2016

         M/S AGLO PACKAGING PVT. LTD
         A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES
         ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NORTH GUWAHATI,
         ASSAM, REP. BY SRI KISHOR SARAOGI, R/O NORTH GUWAHATI, ASSAM.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
         REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
         DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND TAXATION, DISPUR, ASSAM GUWAHATI-
         781006.

         2:THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXES

          ASSAM KAR BHAVAN
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI - 781006.

         3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES

          UNIT-B
          GUWAHATI
          KAR BHAWAN
          GUWAHATI
          ASSAM.

         4:THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF TAXES

          GUWAHATI
          KAR BHAWAN
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI
                                                                                Page No.# 2/12


Advocate for the Petitioner   : MS.P DUTTA, MS.N GOGOI,MS.N HAWELIA,MR.M L GOPE

Advocate for the Respondent : , MS.K DUTTA,SC, FINANCE & TAXATION

BEFORE

Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

Advocate for the petitioner : Ms. N. Hawelia

Advocate for the respondents : Shri B. Choudhury, SC-Finance &Taxation

Date of hearing : 16.10.2025 Date of Judgment : 24.10.2025

Judgment & Order

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging inter alia an order of assessment dated 21.08.2013 passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Unit-B, Guwahati and the subsequent order dated December, 2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Taxes Guwahati whereby the revision petition of the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner is an exempted Unit under the Industrial and Investment Policy of Assam, 2008 (hereinafter referred to the Policy of 2008). Under the said Policy, the petitioner was to get tax benefit, both under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Pursuant to the said Policy, the Finance Department of the Government of Assam had issued a notification dated 03.11.2009 and as per Clause 3(3), the petitioner is to get the benefit of Page No.# 3/12

such exemption. Vide a communication dated 20.09.2010, the petitioner was granted the Eligibility Certificate for claiming incentives under Industrial Policy of Assam, 2008 and for claiming exemption of tax under the Assam Industries (Tax Exemption) Scheme, 2009. The date of commencement of commercial production was stated to be 26.08.2009. Under Serial No. 9 of the Eligibility Certificate, the petitioner was to get exemption for a period of 7 years starting from 26.06.2009 to 25.06.2016 for Rs.687.54 lacs. Pursuant thereto, a Certificate of Entitlement was also granted to the petitioner for the aforesaid period. The dispute however is with regard to the period ending 2010-11 when the petitioner had filed for exemption and vide the impugned assessment order dated 21.08.2013 such exemption was rejected. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner had filed revision petition which was also rejected, vide the order passed in December, 2014 as indicated above. It is these actions which are the subject matter of challenge in this present writ petition.

3. I have heard Ms. N. Hawelia, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Finance & Taxation Department.

4. Ms. Hawelia, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 more particularly, Section 8 thereof. By drawing the attention of this Court to Section 8(1), learned counsel has submitted that under the said provision, there is a requirement for payment of tax in case of inter-state trade or commerce with a provision that the Central Government may reduce the rate. Under Section 8(4), there is a requirement to submit a C form in the form of a declaration and under Section 8(5), the Unit is entitled for the tax benefit to Page No.# 4/12

be given by the State Government on fulfillment of the requirements of Section 8(4). It is the case of the petitioner that certain C forms were not being able to be submitted. However, the learned counsel has submitted that even if a Unit is not able to deposit the C forms, then also such Unit would be entitled for the exemption as per the Policy in question. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent authorities cannot go beyond the views of the Assessing Officer who had in fact recommended for such exemption. It is also submitted that the Unit cannot be deprived of the entitlement under the Policy only because of the fact that the Unit had not asked for such rebate. She submits that Section 8(2) is also liable to be considered in which case the petitioner would be entitled to get the benefit.

5. In support of her submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following decisions-

i. Prism Cement Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra decided on 30.08.2012 in WP No. 6475/2009 [Bombay High Court]

ii. The State of Himachal and Ors. Vs. Techer Power Solution Pvt. Ltd., decided on 16.05.2024 in C.R. Nos. 29/ 2018, 35/2021, 36/2021 and 64/2022 [Himachal Pradesh High Court]

iii. Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. [(2000) 1 SCC 688]

6. In the case of Prism Cement Limited (supra), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court had dealt with the provisions of Section 8(4) of the Act and the requirement of its compliance to get the benefit under Section 8(5).

Page No.# 5/12

7. The Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Techer Power Solution Pvt. Ltd. (supra) had laid down that the assessee must prove that they have not passed on Tax liability to the consumers to claim refund.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (supra) has laid down that a notification by the State under Section 8(5) waving or lowering the rate of tax cannot be challenged except on the ground that no public interest was involved.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly submits that the writ petition be interfered with.

10. Per contra, Shri Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Finance & Taxation Department has submitted that the writ petition is devoid of any merits. By referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 2 on 15.03.2019, he has submitted that the notification dated 03.11.2009 is based on Section 8(5) wherein the requirement of submission of "C Form"

is mandatory. He has submitted that it is only by such "C Forms" that a sale is established and the same would be a sine qua non for claiming exemption of tax benefits. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 more particularly, the Sub-Rule 7 thereof, he has submitted that there is a time limit for submission of declarations of "Form C" within three months and no such application has been filed. He has submitted that so far as the present case is concerned, the period expired on 30.06.2011 by which time no application was filed. The learned counsel has also submitted that the case laws sought to be relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.

Page No.# 6/12

11. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner.

12. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined.

13. The challenge, as noted above, is against the assessment order dated 21.08.2013 and the order passed by the Revisional Authority in December, 2014. The primary contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that without even fulfilling the requirement of submission of "C Form", a Unit would be entitled to the rebate as per the Policy in question. The said submission has been however vehemently refuted on behalf of the Department. To appreciate the rival contention, it would be beneficial to have a close look on the relevant provisions of law which are extracted hereinbelow

"8. Rates of tax on sales in the course of inter-State trade or

commerce.--

(1) Every dealer, who in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, sells to a registered dealer goods of the description referred to in sub-section (3), shall be liable to pay tax under this Act, which shall be two per cent. of his turnover or at the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State under the sales tax law of that State, whichever is lower:

Provided that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, reduce the rate of tax under this sub- section.

(2) The tax payable by any dealer on his turnover in so far as the turnover or any part thereof relates to the sale of goods in Page No.# 7/12

the course of inter-State trade or commerce not falling within sub-section (1), shall be at the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State under the sales tax law of that State.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, a dealer shall be deemed to be a dealer liable to pay tax under the sales tax law of the appropriate State, notwithstanding that he, in fact, may not be so liable under that law.

(3) The goods referred to in sub-section (1)--

(b) are goods of the class or classes specified in the certificate of registration of the registered dealer purchasing the goods as being intended for re-sale by him or subject to any rules made by the Central Government in this behalf, for use by him in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or in the telecommunications network or in mining or in the generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power;

(c) are containers or other materials specified in the certificate of registration of the registered dealer purchasing the goods, being containers or materials intended for being used for the packing of goods for sale;

(d) are containers or other materials used for the packing of any goods or classes of goods specified in the Page No.# 8/12

certificate of registration referred to in clause (b) or for the packing of any containers or other materials specified in the certificate of registration referred to in clause (c).

(4) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to any sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce unless the dealer selling the goods furnishes to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner a declaration duly filled and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods are sold containing the prescribed particulars in a prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority:

Provided that the declaration is furnished within the prescribed time or within such further time as that authority may, for sufficient cause, permit.

(5)Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the State Government may on the fulfilment of the requirements laid down in subsection (4) by the dealer if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the public interest, by notification in the Official Gazette and subject to such conditions as may be specified therein direct,--

(a) that no tax under this Act shall be payable by any dealer having his place of business in the State in respect of the sales by him, in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, to a registered dealer from any such place of business of any such goods or classes of goods Page No.# 9/12

as may be specified in the notification, or that the tax on such sales shall be calculated at such lower rates than those specified in subsection (1) as may be mentioned in the notification;

(b) that in respect of all sales of goods or sales of such classes of goods as may be specified in the notification, which are made, in the course of inter-State trade or commerce to a registered dealer by any dealer having his place of business in the State or by any class of such dealers as may be specified in the notification to any person or to such class of persons as may be specified in the notification, no tax under this Act shall be payable or the tax on such sales shall be calculated at such lower rates than those specified in sub-section (1) as may be mentioned in the notification.

..."

14. A bare reading of Section 8(5) would show that the same is dependent on Section 8(4). In other words unless the conditions mentioned in Section 8(4) are fulfilled, there would be no application of the provisions of Section 8(5). The learned counsel has tried to argue that even if the petitioner does not furnish such declaration, they cannot be deprived of the rebate. Such submission is not acceptable, in view of the clear requirement of the statute. This Court has also carefully examined the impugned orders and there is a mention that even in a best scenario case, the petitioner would not be entitled to the rebate. This Court has also noticed that in fact the Revisional Authority has noted that while making the assessment, Page No.# 10/12

certain amount has been given in excess as rebate which however was not interfered in the revisional jurisdiction. The relevant observations made by the said authority are extracted hereinbelow-

"The implication even for the best scenario in regard, to the Petitioner is that, against the allowed partial exemption of 99% of the payable tax amount under VAT and Central sales Tax at Rs.11,59,305/- in the assessment order under challenge, the legally allowable quantum of tax on which 99% remission is available, works out only at Rs.10,77,094/- which is lower than that allowed by the Assessing officer. Since no order prejudicial to the Petitioner can be passed under the present proceedings taken up under Section 82(2) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 read with Section 9(2) of the Central sales Tax Act, 1956, the present revisions petition is disposed by rejecting the same on merit."

In the considered opinion of this Court, such an approach is reasonable and based on the relevant factors which are the yardstick which governs a scrutiny by a Writ Court especially in exercise of its Certiorari jurisdiction.

15. It is a settled position of law that a Tax statute has to be given strict interpretation as the interest of the State is involved. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commr. of Customs Vs. Dilip Kumar & Co., reported in (2018) 9 SCC 1 after considering various decisions on the interpretation of fiscal statutes, concluded that every taxing statute including, charging, computation and exemption clauses, at the threshold stage should be interpreted strictly. Further, though in case of ambiguity in charging provisions, the benefit necessarily goes in favour of the assessee, Page No.# 11/12

but for an exemption notification or exemption clause the benefit of ambiguity must be strictly interpreted in favour of the Revenue/State. The aforesaid view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment of Union of India Vs. VVF Ltd., reported in (2020) 20 SCC 57.

16. This Court is of the opinion that the Eligibility Certificate which the petitioner is staking claim is only with regard to the production, date, etc. and it is the fulfillment of the conditions which are necessary and mandatory to claim the rebate in accordance with the Policy.

17. The case laws relied upon by the petitioners are all distinguishable on facts. In the case of Prism Cement Limited (supra), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has clearly laid down that to claim the benefit of Section 8(5) of the Act, the requirements of Section 8(4) is mandatory. For ready reference, the relevant observations are extracted hereinbelow-

"57. The alternative argument of the Revenue that the words 'sub

section (2)' as also the words 'to any person or to such class of persons' in Section 8(5)(a) and 8(5)(b) must be treated as redundant and ignored is equally unsustainable, because, it is well established in law that the intention of the legislature is to be gathered from the language used in the statute and if the language is clear and unambiguous then that meaning has to be adopted and it is not open to the Court to give a different meaning by treating the words used in the statute as redundant or superfluous. The object of 2002 amendment was to make it mandatory to comply with the requirements of Section 8(4) in respect of transactions covered under Section 8(1) and while keeping the powers already Page No.# 12/12

conferred upon the State Governments intact, the said object has been achieved by inserting necessary words to that effect by the 2002 amendment. ..."

18. So far as the case of Techer Power Solution Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is concerned, it has been laid down that the assessee must prove that they have not passed the tax liability to the consumers to claim refund and those facts are not relevant in the instant case where the issue is completely different.

19. In the case of the Shree Digvijay Cement Co. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court Has laid down that any notification of the State under Section 8(5) of the Act waiving or lowering rate cannot be challenged except on the ground that no public interest was involved. In that case however, the Notification itself provided for an alternative / substitute for submitting C forms. The facts of the present case are wholly different.

20. In the considered opinion of this Court, none of the case laws relied upon by the petitioner would come to the aid of the petitioner.

21. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the opinion that no case for interference is able to be made out by the petitioner and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.

22. No order as to cost.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant