The State cannot insist on furnishing an undertaking as a precondition for C and F Forms issuance without statutory provisions, and executive instructions cannot alter or amend statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

M. S. Sonak, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Even otherwise, there were orders already made for the disposal of these petitions at the stage of admission itself.

3. Learned counsel for the parties agree that common issues of law and fact arise in both these petitions and therefore, both these petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment and order by treating Writ Petition No.2290/2021 (F) as the lead petition.

4. The petitioners in both these petitions challenge the insistence on the part of the respondents that the petitioners furnish an undertaking concerning the payment of all taxes, interest, and penalty, in case the GST Council ultimately decides that Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA) is a commodity covered under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Law, as a precondition for the issuance of “C and F Forms” under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act) and Rules made thereunder.

5. The petitioners claim that they have fulfilled the necessary terms and conditions prescribed under the CST Act thereby entitling them to the “C and F Forms”. They submit that there is no provision in the CST Act, 1956, The Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 (CST Rules), or the Central Sales Tax (Goa) Rules, 1973 (Goa Rules) based upon which the respondents can insist upon such undertaking. Therefore, the petitioners seek a declaration that the impugned direction in Office Memorandum dated 21.04.2021 (OM) and the impugned undertaking, in the format appended to the said OM is ultra vires and the respondents cannot insist upon enforcing the same as a precondition for the issuance of “C and F Forms” to the petitioners.

6. Mr. Rohan Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners adverted to the provisions of the CST Act, CST Rules, and the Goa Rules to submit that there is no provision therein that empowers the respondents to insist upon the impugned undertaking as a precondition for the issuance of “C and F Forms”. He submits that this position has not even been denied by the respondents in their returns. He submits that no source of power to insist upon such undertaking has been disclosed in the returns. He, therefore, submits that such insistence is ex facie ultra vires.

7. Mr. Shah also submits that where a statutory authority is required to do a thing in a particular manner, the same must be done in that manner alone, or not at all. He submits that the State is bound to act within the four corners of the statutory framework and there is no question of insisting upon the impugned undertaking when the statute or the statutory rules do not provide for the same. He relies on Om Prakash v. Ashwini Kumar - 2010 (8) TMI 465 (SC) and Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. - 2003 (2) SCC 111.

8. Mr. Shah then adverted to the various minutes of the meetings of the GST Council and pointed out that the Council, of which even the State of Goa was a part has taken a conscious decision to continue with the status quo and apply the CST regime in respect of ENA used for the manufacture of alcohol for human consumption (said commodity) pending the final decision on this issue. He submits that the State of Goa, in compliance with this decision does not deny the applicability of the CST regime in matters of inter-State trade or commerce of the said commodity. He points out that even the OM dated 21.04.2021, after adverting to the decisions taken in the GST Council acknowledges that the said commodity is to be considered as taxable under Section 5(1)(e) of the Goa Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and therefore, the statutory forms like C and F Forms are to be issued by the assessing authorities in terms of the provisions of the said Act. He submits that all the preconditions prescribed for the issue of such forms under the CST regime have been duly complied with by the petitioner