Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Vardhman Yarns vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 November, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1 WP-11145-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 21st OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 9313 of 2021
PRISM JOHNSON LIMITED
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akshay Sapre-Advocate for petitioner through video
conferencing.
Shri Arnav Tiwari- Advocate for respondent/Union of India.
Shri R.D Padraha- Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Shri Aditya Adhikari-Senior Advocate with Ms Anannya Shree
Adhikari-Advocate for respondent no.5 to 7.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 18766 of 2018
RCCPL PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kapil Jain -Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Arnav Tiwari -Advocate for respondent/Union of India.
Shri R.D Padraha-Government Advocate for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 18767 of 2018
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 27-11-2025
11:27:45
2 WP-11145-2021
BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kishore Shrivastava- Senior Advocate with Shri Prem Mahesh Francis and
Shri Raman Choubey- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.D Padraha-Government Advocate for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 25760 of 2018
KJS CEMENT LIMITED
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
None appeared for petitioner.
Shri R.D Padraha-Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Shri Aditya Adhikari- Senior Advocate with Ms. Anannya Shree Adhikari -
Advocate for respondent no.3.
WRIT PETITION No. 11205 of 2019
CENTURY TEXTILES AND INDUSTRIES LTD. THROUGH ITS VICE
PRESIDENT (ACCOUNT) SHIVAM PORWAL
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kishore Shrivastava- Senior Advocate with Shri Prem Mahesh Francis and
Shri Raman Choubey -Advocates for petitioner.
Shri Arnav Tiwari-Advocate for respondent/Union of India.
Shri R.D Padraha-Government Advocate for respondent/State
WRIT PETITION No. 11206 of 2019
ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD.
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kishore Shrivastava-Senior Advocate with Shri Prem Mahesh Francis and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 27-11-2025
11:27:45
3 WP-11145-2021
Shri Raman Choubey-Advocates for petitioner.
Shri R.D Padraha-Government Advocate for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 23345 of 2019
M/S FORTUNE STONES LIMITED
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ayush Gupta -Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.D Padraha-Government Advocate for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 13216 of 2020
ACC CEMENTS LIMITED
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kishore Shrivastava- Senior Advocate with Shri Prem Mahesh Francis and
Shri Raman Choubey-Advocates for petitioner.
Shri R.D Padraha-Government Advocate for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 16942 of 2020
I PATRIC DHANRAJ
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ayush Gupta-Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.D Padraha-Government Advocate for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 11145 of 2021
M/S VARDHMAN YARNS AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava- Advocate and Shri Amit Shrivastava- Advocate for the
petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 27-11-2025
11:27:45
4 WP-11145-2021
Shri Adhitya Adhikari-Senior Advocate with Ms. Anannya Shree Adhikari-
Advocate for respondent no.3.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia The issues involved in these writ petitions are common; thus, they are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts of writ petition no.9313 of 2021 are being taken to decide the controversy involved herein.
The petitioner has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the action of the respondent no.1 to 4 by which they have denied the issuance of Form "C" under section 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as CST Act), for the procurement of High Speed Diesel at concessional rate through interstate trade for the period starting from 01.07.2017.
2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act and engaged in the manufacture and sale of clinkers and cement from its units located in various parts of the country.
3. Shri Kishore Shrivastava- Senior Counsel submits that the issue involved in all these petitions is no more res integra as High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a case of Carpo Power Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana (CWP No.29437 of 2017) vide order dated 28th March, 2018 held that the Commercial Tax Department is liable to issue "C" Form in respect of the natural gas purchased by the petitioner therein from the Oil Companies in Gujarat and used in the generation of distribution of electricity at its power plants in Haryana. The petitioner shall be entitled to get a refund and/or Signature Not Verified Signed by: TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Signing time: 27-11-2025 11:27:45 5 WP-11145-2021 adjustment of any amount from the concerned authorities, who collected the excess tax through the oil companies or otherwise. Against the said order, the State of Haryana preferred an SLP (C) No.20572/2018, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 13.08.2018 by the Apex Court.
4. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that thereafter, as many as nine different High Courts have followed the judgment passed in the case of Capro Power Limited (supra). Lastly, one of the orders passed by the High Court judicature at Madras in the case of Ramco Cements Ltd. & ors Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, 2019(64) GSTR 374 (Mad) was put to challenge before the Apex Court by the Commercial Department, by way of SLP (C) No. 15785-15788/2020 and vide order dated 24.03.2021, the said SLP has been dismissed.
5. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel submits that nothing remains in these petitions for adjudication as the law laid down by the Apex Court has confirmed the view taken in the case of Carpo Power Limited (supra) . Hence, the petitioner is legally entitled to procure High Speed Diesel (HSD) at the concessional rate against Form "C" for use by him "in mining" and/or "in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale under section 8(3)(b) of the CST Act, 1956 and the Rules framed thereunder. The respondents be also directed to refund the amount of tax for the period July, 2017 to March 2021 (upto 27.03.2021), paid by the petitioner to the oil companies along with interest.
6. After notice in these petitions, the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 filed the reply opposing the writ petitions. Shri Awasthi learned Government Signature Not Verified Signed by: TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Signing time: 27-11-2025 11:27:45 6 WP-11145-2021 Advocate contends that the Goods & Service Tax Act came into force w.e.f 01.07.2017 and simultaneously by amendment dated 05.07.2017, the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was also amended and before amendment, the definition of 'goods' under section 2(d) was very restrictive, but after amendment dated 05.07.2017, the Petroleum Crude, High Speed Diesel, Motor Spirit, Natural Gas, etc were included in the definition of "Goods"; therefore, the dealer is entitled for declaration Form "C". The petitioner is a manufacturer of cement and clinker; therefore, the conditions mentioned in section 8(3)(b) are required to be fulfilled to get a Form "C". Further emphasised that as per the aforesaid definition, the Form "C" can be granted for use as a raw material in the manufacture of the 'goods', i.e cement. The petitioner is seeking the issuance of Form "C", but is not fulfilling the conditions mentioned in section 8(3)(b) of the CST Act, 1956. Hence, the petitions are liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the facts of the present petitions are distinguishable from the facts of Carpo Power Limited (supra) decided by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Carpo Power Limited was involved in the generation of electricity. Natural gas is used for the generation of electricity. But in the cement manufacturing plant, the requirement of High Speed Diesel (HSD) for mining purposes and therefore, the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Carpo Power Limited (supra) will not apply in the present cases.
7. We are not in agreement with the aforesaid submission of learned Government Advocate. It is clear from the definition of "Goods" of the CST Act, 1956 w.e.f 05.07.2017, that High Speed Diesel (HSD) is stated to be Signature Not Verified Signed by: TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Signing time: 27-11-2025 11:27:45 7 WP-11145-2021 "goods". As per the definition under section 8(3)(b), the goods of the class or classes specified in the certificate of registration of the registered dealer purchasing the goods as being intended for resale 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.
The relevant order passed by the Apex Court in the case The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Vs. Ramco Cements Ltd. & ors ( SLP (C) No. 15785-15788/2020 decided vide order dated 24.03.2021) , is reproduced as under:-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
We are in agreement with the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 'Carpo Power Limited vs. State of Haryana & Ors .', which has already been upheld by this Court by dismissing Special Leave Petition (C) No.20572 of 2018 vide order dated 13th August, 2018.
The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi has also dealt with the same issue in ' Tata Steel Limited vs. State of Jharkhand' reported in 2019 SCC online Jharkhand 1255. This judgment, in our opinion, is exhaustive and answers all the points urged before us by the petitioner(s) in the instant special leave petitions. It is brought to our notice that nine High Courts have taken the same view. Even the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan has been affirmed by this Court by dismissal of Special Leave Petition (C) No.27529 of 2019 and connected cases vide order dated 3rd February, 2020.
Considering the consistent view of nine High Courts, including dismissal of special leave petitions by different Bench of this Court, and being satisfied about the exposition on the matters in issue by the High Court of Madras vide impugned judgment and order being a possible view, we decline to interfere in these special leave petitions.
Notably, after the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court even the Union of India has chosen to act upon the said decision by issuing Office Memorandum dated 1st November, 2018 and directing all the States/Union Territories to follow the view Signature Not Verified Signed by: TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Signing time: 27-11-2025 11:27:45
8 WP-11145-2021 taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Hence, we see no reason to reopen the entire matter. The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.
Consequently, all pending applications shall also stand disposed of."
8. The petitioner has been purchasing High Speed Diesel (HSD) for the manufacture of cement. The petitioner is not a trader who purchased HSD for resale. This definition further clarifies the use of HSD in mining or the generation, or distribution of electricity. Therefore, HSD has been used in mining or manufacturing; the petitioner is entitled to Form "C" from the period July 2017 to 27.03.2021. These petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to issue the Form "C" to the petitioners under section 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and any amount collected from the petitioners either be refunded or adjusted in future liability.
In view of above, Writ Petition No. 9313 of 2021 is allowed. In terms of above order, all the connected writ petitions are allowed.
Let photocopy of this order be placed in all connected matters.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
tarun
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 27-11-2025
11:27:45