w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s. Schneider Electric it Business Pvt Ltd., Represented by Director Ashish Kumar & Another v/s Union of India, Represented by its Secretary Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others

    W.P. Nos. 47560, 47559, 62347-348, 47561, 62543 of 2016 & 11876-880, 37543, 40673-674 of 2017 (T-CST)

    Decided On, 18 September 2017

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

    For the Petitioners: G. Shivadass, Advocate. For the Respondents: C. Shashikantha, CGSC.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: This W.P. is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the communication/letter dtd.25.2.2016 issued by R-4 at Annex-A etc.

These W.Ps. are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the communication/letter dtd.15.2.2010 issued by R-4 at Annex-A etc.

This W.P. is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct respondents-3 and 4 to grant refund of CST paid on purchases made from EOU/STP Units at Annexures-B & C.

These W.P. are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the communication/letter dated.06.10.2016 issued by Respondent No.4 at Annexure-A etc.

These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the communication/letter dated 21.11.2016 issued by R-6 at Annexures-A and B respectively.)

Mr. Shivasdass G. Adv. for Petitioners.

Mr. C. Shashikantha, CGSC for Respondents.

1. The controversy involved in the present cases is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in W.P.Nos.54015/2016 & 54173-184/2016 decided on 03.08.2017 (M/s. Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited –vs- Union of India) reported in 2017 VIL 409 KAR in which this Court has held that irrespective of the purchase made by the petitioner-assessee whether (i) from the industries situated in Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) and (ii) from the EOU units situated in EOUs/SEZs/EHTP/STPI specified Zones or areas, the petitioner-assessee being 100% Export Oriented Unit (E.O.U) will be entitled for reimbursement of the Central Sales Tax (CST) paid by them on the inter-state purchases made by the petitioner-Company from these two types of suppliers.

2. The relevant portion of the judgment of this Court in paragraphs-11 to 14 is quoted below for ready reference:

'11. This Court is also of the opinion that there is no justifiable reason for the Respondent-Authority to deny such benefit of CST reimbursement to the petitioner-Company merely because the goods in question are purchased from a Unit situated in EOUs/SEZs/EHTP/STPI specified Zones or areas and deny the said benefit merely because the Units are located in EOU/SEZ area. Irrespective of the location of the Manufacturing Units selling such products to the petitioner-Company in the course of inter-state Trade and charging CST, the goods continue to be the 'Goods manufactured in India' which is the requirement in the said Foreign Trade Policy for entitling the petitioner-Company to claim such reimbursement of CST paid under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

12. Moreover, the specific amendment in the said Foreign Trade Policy for the year 2015-2010 removed the said anomaly and discrimination as to the source of Units from which the petitioner may purchase such goods in the course of inter-state trade and commerce and the said amendment can be treated only as a clarificatory one and can be applied to the previous period also as held by the aforesaid Division Bench decisions by the three different High Courts.

13. Therefore, respectfully agreeing with the same, the present petitions also deserve to be allowed and the same are accordingly allowed and quashing the impugned Circulars and communications as indicated in the prayers of these petitions quoted above, the Writ Petitions are allowed with no order as to costs and the Respondents are directed to give the CST reimbursement/refund to the petitioner-Company in respect of the inter-state purchases made by it from the Units located in EOUs/SEZs/EHTP/STPI specified Zones or areas for the period of question, covered by Foreign Trade Policy of 2009-2014.

14. The said refund claim of the petitioner-Company may be processed expeditiously and refun

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

d may be given to the petitioner-Company within a period of three months from today. No order as to costs.' 3. These petitions are also therefore disposed of in same terms. The respondent-Assessing Authority may verify the quantum of claim of the petitioner-assessee and then decide the refund application in accordance with the law laid down by this Court expeditiously within three months from today. No costs.
O R