Bombay High Court
M/S. Tata Steel Bsl Limited Through ... vs Union Of India Through Secretary ... on 1 October, 2020
Author: Abhay Ahuja
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, Abhay Ahuja
Digitally
Minal signed by
Minal V.
Parab
V. Date:
2020.10.01
Parab 13:28:04
+0530
3_WPST93160_20.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.93160 OF 2020
M/s. Tata Steel BSL Limited ... Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India and others ... Respondents
Mr. Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Vijay Purohit, Mr. Manik
Ahluwalia and Ms. Nikita Bangera i/b. P&A Law Offices for Petitioner.
Ms. S. D. Vyas, B Panel Counsel for Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4-State.
Mr. Rajan Mishra i/b. Mr. Mihir Deshmukh for Respondent No.5.
CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN &
ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.
DATE : OCTOBER 01, 2020
P.C. :
Heard Mr. Nankani, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Vyas, learned AGP for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. We have also heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5.
2. On 25.09.2020, Ms. Vyas, learned AGP for the State sought time to obtain instructions on the prayer of the petitioner for stay of impugned order dated 05.03.2020.
3. Today when the matter is called upon, she submits that State would like to file a detailed affidavit. However, she opposes the prayer for stay and submits that she has a preliminary objection as to maintainability of the writ petition as petitioner has statutory remedy of appeal. When the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case Capro Power Limited Vs. State of Haryana, CWP No.29437 of 2017, decided on 28.03.2018, was brought to her notice, she submits that the said case may not be applicable to the facts of the present case. She has drawn our attention to paragraph 27 of the said judgment to contend that in that case the registration certificate of the petitioner was not cancelled.
4. Issue notice, returnable four weeks.
1/23_WPST93160_20.doc
5. Parties may file affidavit by the returnable date.
6. Petitioner was granted certificate of registration by the State of Maharashtra under the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 whereby petitioner was registered as a dealer under section 7(1) / 7(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. By the impugned order dated 05.03.2020, the said registration certificate has been cancelled. Ground for cancellation of registration certificate is that petitioner had not sold any of the products covered by the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 during the relevant period. Consequently, the certificate was cancelled with effect from 01.07.2017. Consequence of such cancellation is that the dealer i.e., the petitioner would not be entitled to use any 'C' forms for transactions after 01.07.2017.
7. Mr. Nankani had elaborately taken us to the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as well as the provisions of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. He has also taken us to the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Carpo Power Limited (supra).
8. After examining the case of the petitioner vis-a-vis the judgment in Carpo Power Limited (supra), we are of the prima facie view that the aforesaid decision may be applicable to the case of the petitioner. That apart, Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Haryana against the aforesaid decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court holding that there was no legal and valid ground for interference.
9. In view of the above, there shall be stay of the impugned order dated 05.03.2020 till the returnable date and as a consequence respondents are directed to issue the necessary 'C' forms on the basis of the registration certificate.
10. Stand over to 27.10.2020.
11. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN, J.)
Minal Parab 2/2