‘C ‘ Forms for natural gas: Supreme Court upholds Punjab and Haryana HC in Carpo Power Ltd
The Supreme Court state that the respondent was responsible for issuing the form of ‘C’ in connection with the natural gas purchased by the petitioner of the oil company in Gujarat and used in the generation or distribution of electricity in the power plant in Haryana.
The Tamilnadu government submitted a special Leave petition to allow HSD purchases, by issuing C form at a 2% concession rate and has upheld the decision of the two single judges and the Madras high court division bench.
Carpo Power Limited vs. the State of Haryana holding natural gas sales by BPCL / HPCL
Punjab and Haryana in the case of Carpo Power Limited vs. the State of Haryana holding natural gas sales by BPCL / HPCL from Gujarat to Petition in Haryana are sales between countries in terms of section 3 (a) CST Law, 1956. Natural gas is included in the definition of goods in accordance with CST Part 2 (D) CST Law, 1956 before the 2017 amendment. Therefore, the oil company is responsible for paying CST on sales of natural gas. The state government is empowered to collect CST.
Terms of section 2 (F) read with section 2 (d) and 7 (2) under the CST Law, 1956
The High Court stated that the petitioner was a registered dealer in terms of section 2 (F) read with section 2 (d) and 7 (2) under the CST Law, 1956. The definition of goods even after the 2017 amendments also included “natural gas” as goods,
Registered dealer under the CST Law, 1956
“Therefore, the Petitioner fulfills all requirements Section 7 (2) of CST ACT, 1956 and will be considered a registered dealer under the CST Law, 1956. The government took the attitude that the applicant was not involved in reselling these items because that Not entitled to the form “C”, the High Court had observed.
Rejection of the respondents to issue the Form `C ‘Applicant
Three judge bench Justice Judges K.M. KhanwiLkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and Krishna Murari decided that if the applicants had to pay to oil companies because of the rejection of the respondents to issue the Form `C ‘Applicant was entitled to the same refund and adjustment from the relevant authorities who collected excess taxes through oil companies or vice versa.
Apex court declined to disrupt Special Leave Petition – SLP
APEX court after considering the consistent view of nine high courts, including the dismissal of the Petition leaving specifically by the different Supreme Court bench, and filled with an exposition of problems treated by the Madras High Court and ordered a possible view, the Apex court declined to disrupt special leave petition.
