JUDGMENT :

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant-a Public Limited Company has prayed for the following reliefs:

"A. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate to forthwith grant refund of tax amount of Rs. 1,87,69,739 under the CST Act collected from the petitioner and deposited by the seller along with appropriate interest on such refund amount;

B. Pending notice, admission and final hearing of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the learned respondents to forthwith grant refund of tax amount of Rs. 1,87,739 under the CST Act collected from the petitioner and deposited by the seller along with appropriate interest on such refund amount;

C. Ex parte ad interim relief in terms of prayer B may kindly be granted;

D. Such further relief(s) as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in the interest of justice for which act of kindness your petitioner shall forever pray."

2. We have heard Mr. Uchit Sheth, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant and Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, the learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondents. The affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents is ordered to be taken on record.

3. The principal argument of Mr. Sheth is that the respondents have wrongly declined to refund the amount of excess tax collected and deposited with them despite the fact that the High Court of Bombay in the case of the writ applicant itself in the Writ Petition No. 2923 of 2019 decided on 17th December 2020 has directed the respondents to issue necessary "C" Forms to the writ applicant. The order passed by the Bombay High Court upon which strong reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant reads thus:

"20.1. Thus, petitioner has been denied 'C' forms on the ground that natural gas purchased by it in the course of inter-state sale is used for manufacturing of float glass which is not covered by the definition of goods under section 2(d) of the CST Act.

21. In Carpo Power Limited v. State of Haryana, 2018 (12) GSTL 248 (P&H), Punjab & Haryana High Court dealt with the challenge made by the petitioner to refusal of the respondents to issue 'C' forms in respect of natural gas purchased by it in the course of inter-state sale and used by it for generation of electricity. After referring to the definition of 'goods' in section 2(d) as well as the provisions of sections 7 and 8, it was held as under:-

"26. The provisions of Section 8 of the CST Act, Rule 12 of CST (R&T) Rules and declaration Form C have not undergone any amendment after the implementation of the GST laws. There cannot be any occasion to restrict the usage of 'C' Form only for the purposes of re-sale of the six items mentioned in the amended definition of 'goods' in Section 2(d) of the CST Act. The purchase of the said goods for purposes of re-sale, use in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale, in the telecommunications network or mining or in generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power would qualify the purchaser for registration under Section 7(2) of the CST Act. Section 7(2) does not stipulate that only a dealer liable to pay tax under the sales tax law of the appropriate State in respect of any particular goods is entitled to apply for registration. Nor does section 7(2) stipulate that an application for registration can be made or 'C' Form can be issued only in respect of the sale of the same goods prescribed in the course of an inter-state sale. A dealer liable to pay tax under the sales tax law of the appropriate State in respect of any goods would be covered by Section 7(2) of the Act."

21.1. While allowing the writ petition, it was held that the respondents were liable to issue 'C' forms in respect of the natural gas purchased by the petitioner from Gujarat and used in the generatio