SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 323

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, PANKAJ MITHAL
State of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Prism Cement Limited – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Punit Dutt Tyagi, AOR Mr. Zoheb Hossain, AOR Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, Adv. Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv. Mr. Shreyash Kumar, Adv. Mr. Yashwant Sanjenbam, Adv. Mr. Imlikaba Jamir, Adv. M/S. K J John And Co, AOR Mr. V Sridharan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sahil Parghi, Adv. Mr. S Sriram, Adv. Ms. Neha Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Umang Motiyani, Adv. Mr. Aayush Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Falguni Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ayush Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran, AOR Mr. S. Ravi Shankar, AOR Ms. Yamunah Nachiar, Adv. Ms. Meghna Mukherjee, Adv. M/S. Gagrat And Co, AOR Mr. Ujjwal A Rana, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Mehta, Adv. Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, Adv. Ms. Padma Priya, Adv. Mr. Paarivendhan, Adv. Ms. Anushree Prashit Kapadia, AOR Mr. M. P. Devanath, AOR

Judgement Key Points

What is... How to determine whether the amendment to Section 8(5) of the CST Act retrospectively affects previously granted tax exemptions? What is... What are the rights accrued under absolute exemptions granted prior to the 2002 amendment to Section 8(5) of the CST Act? What is... What are the conditions under which Form ‘C’ and ‘D’ declarations are required for inter-State sales post-amendment?

Key Points: - The State Government cannot unilaterally revoke previously granted exemptions without notice. (!) - The amendment to Section 8(5) of the CST Act is prospective and does not nullify rights accrued under pre-amendment exemptions; Form ‘C’ and ‘D’ requirements apply prospectively. (!) (!) - Exemptions granted under PSI 1993 in existence before 11.05.2002 created substantive rights up to the earlier of 2012 or Rs. 273.54 crore. (!) (!) - After the 2002 amendment, compliance with Section 8(4) (Forms ‘C’/‘D’) became a condition for exemptions, but this applies to transactions post-amendment. (!) (!) - The appeals related to Maharashtra’s revision notices, based on Form ‘C’ and ‘D’ compliance, were dismissed for lack of retrospective application of the amendment to pre-existing rights. (!) - The decision relies on general principle that repeal or amendment does not affect accrued rights unless explicitly stated or revocation is effected with due process. (!) (!) - Prior judgments reaffirm the principle that substantive rights accrued cannot be taken away unilaterally without notice/hearing. (!)

What is... How to determine whether the amendment to Section 8(5) of the CST Act retrospectively affects previously granted tax exemptions?

What is... What are the rights accrued under absolute exemptions granted prior to the 2002 amendment to Section 8(5) of the CST Act?

What is... What are the conditions under which Form ‘C’ and ‘D’ declarations are required for inter-State sales post-amendment?


JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Civil Appeal No. 13928 of 2015:

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

2. The assessee-respondent Prism Cement Limited, a public limited company, invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court, challenging the three trade circulars issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai1 [In short ‘Commissioner’] on 27.05.2002, 20.07.2002 and 08.02.2007 respectively and various notices issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax under Section 38 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 19592 [In short ‘BST Act’] for revising the assessments of the assessee-respondent made for the assessment years 2002-2003 to 2004-2005. Consequentially, calling upon the assessee-respondent to pay/refund the exempted portion of the tax as per the provision of Package Scheme of Incentives 19933 [Hereinafter referred to as ‘PSI 1993’] on the sale of goods effected in the course of inter-State trade or commerce.

3. The above writ petition has been allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 30.08.2012 and it has been held that even after the amendment of Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act4 [In short ‘CST Act’] by t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top