Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
The State Of Rajasthan vs M/S. Dileep Potteries Pvt. Ltd on 2 November, 2022
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 21/2021
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary
Department Of Finance, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes
Department, Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. M/s. Dileep Potteries Pvt. Ltd., Village Chirota, Post
Ajayrajpura, Via Bagru Jaipur, Through Its Director Ravi
Kant Bagrecha S/o Ugam Raj Bagrecha, Aged About 41
Years, Resident Of Kanchan Kunj, C-112, Jagdamba
Nagar, Behind Heerapura Power House, Ajmer Road,
Jaipur-302006
2. The Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of
Finance, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi
3. The Under Secretary (St-Ii), Ministry Of Finance,
Department Of Revenue, State Tax Division, New Delhi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Dutt
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pushkar Taimini for
Mr. Sanjay Nahar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
02/11/2022
This review petition is filed on behalf of the State seeking
review of the order dated 18.11.2020 passed by this Court in
SBCWP No. 6837/2018.
This Court allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner
while relying on decision rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this
(2 of 3) [WRW-21/2021]
Court in Hindustan Zinc Ltd Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors
(SBCWP No. 5506/2018) decided on 18.05.2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-State has submitted that
the controversy involved in Hindustan Zinc Ltd (supra) was in
relation to procurement of High Speed Diesel for the purpose of
mining only whereas, the respondents-firm is not involved in
mining activities and, therefore, cannot claim 'C' Forms for
purchasing of High Speed Diesel for manufacturing and re-sale of
the ceramic items. It is also submitted that since in the Hindustan
Zinc (supra), the controversy was regarding issuance of 'C' Forms
for purchasing High Speed Diesel for mining activities, the case of
the respondents was not covered by the decision of Hindustan
Zinc (supra), hence the order passed by this Court is required to
be reviewed.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has
vehemently opposed the review petition and argued that in the
Hindustan Zinc Ltd (supra), the learned Single Judge has clarified
that the State cannot restrict the uses of 'C' Forms only for the
purpose of re-sale of six items mentioned in the amended
definition of the goods in Section 2 (d) of the CST Act and 'C'
Forms is required to be issued in the cases of manufacturing and
re-sale of the goods also. It is further submitted that decision of
the Hindustan Zinc Ltd (supra) was based on the Division Bench
decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in Carpo
Power Limited Vs. State of Haryana and others (CWP No.
29437/2017) decided on 28.03.2018. Learned counsel for the
respondents has submitted that in the Carpo Power Limited
(supra) the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court has
held that the uses of 'C' Forms cannot be restricted for six items
(3 of 3) [WRW-21/2021]
mentioned in the amended definitions of goods in Section 2 (d) of
the CST Act and it would be applicable in case of procurement of
goods for the purpose of manufacturing and re-sale.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the material available on record particularly, the judgment
passed by the learned Single Judge of a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Hindustan Zinc Ltd (supra) and the decision of Division
Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Carpo Power Ltd, I do
not find any merit in this review petition, hence the same is
dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
Surabhii/50-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
