CST Act | After 20-Year Litigation, Gujarat High Court Allows PSU's Branch-Transfer Exemption Claim Which Was Denied For Non Production of Original Form F
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Gujarat Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi allowed a public sector oil marketing enterprise to have its branch-transfer claim of Rs 6.29 crore considered for exemption from Central Sales Tax, after accepting the original Form F that had not been produced earlier. The dispute concerned inter-State movement of goods treated as branch transfers for Assessment Year 2003-04, where the tax department had denied exemption for a set of transactions because only a duplicate Form F was available at the relevant time. Form F is the statutory declaration used to establish branch transfers in inter-State trade and claim CST exemption on such transfers. The Court noted the long-running litigation and directed the authority to verify and consider the Form F, and to ascertain remaining dues payable by the petitioner within 12 weeks.
The petitioner, an oil marketing public sector undertaking incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, maintained a branch office in Gujarat and held valid registrations under the GVAT Act, 2003 and CST Act, 1956. For Assessment Year 2003–04, the petitioner was required to submit statutory Form F for branch-transfer transactions. Due to non-submission, the Assessing Officer computed demand of Rs.108,59,07,018/- and issued the assessment order dated 26.03.2008.
After the first appeal was dismissed for non-payment of pre-deposit, the Tribunal ordered deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- and remanded the matter. In subsequent rounds, partial Form F submissions were accepted by the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal, while certain transactions remained disallowed for want of the original Form F. The Tribunal declined acceptance of the petitioner’s claim for Rs.6,29,59,345/- on the ground that only a duplicate form was submitted.
The petitioner later produced the original form but the Tribunal rejected the Misc. Application seeking its consideration. The petitioner assured that this would be its final claim for the year and that remaining dues relating to unproduced Forms F would not be disputed. The respondents confirmed verification of the original Form F.
The Court observed that “the relevant Assessment Year is 2003-04, and litigation has gone for almost 20 years partially for non-production of Form ‘F’.” It stated that “it is settled law that the assessee is eligible in reduction rate tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on production of Form ‘C’ for inter state sale and Nil rate of tax on production of Form ‘F’ for branch transfer.” It added that “the authority has not disputed the fact that the transaction was a branch transfer and Form ‘F’ was duly certified and issued by the authority.”
The Court recorded that “the only issue is the production of Form ‘F’ on piecemeal basis.” It noted that the petitioner had furnished Forms F at various stages and that “the transactions of Rs.6,29,59,345/- were not considered due to non-production of the original Form. Now the original Form is produced and verified by the authority.”
The Court further recorded that learned counsel for the petitioner assured that “the claim of the amount for which the Form ‘F’ which are not produced would not be contested by the petitioner afterwards” and that “the dues subsequent to non-production of the remaining Form ‘F’ will be paid by the petitioner in accordance with law.” It stated that as the matter related solely to production of Form F and a legitimate claim, “this Court is inclined to accept the prayer of the petitioner to the aforesaid extent.”
The Court relied on the respondents’ affidavit stating: “we hereby verify that the F-Form produced by the petitioner is true and correct” and that in view of the petitioner’s affidavit waiving future claims for remaining Forms F, the Court “may kindly be pleased to pass appropriate order in accordance law in the interest of justice.”
The Court stated that “the present writ petition is allowed to the extent of considering of Form ‘F’ produced by the petitioner and as verified by the respondent.” It directed that “Form ‘F’ being Form No. 158386 dated 22.03.2008 to the tune of Rs.6,29,59,345/- are allowed to be considered in view of the averments made by the respondents in the affidavit-in-reply.”
“The respondent shall ascertain the remaining transactions and the same would be payable by the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of passing of this order.” It concluded that “the petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. N. C. Shukla; Mr. Apurva Mehta for Mr. Vijay H. Patel
For the Respondents: Ms. Shrunjal T. Shah, Assistant Government Pleader
Case Title: M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: GUJHC:65825-DB
Case Number: Special Civil Application No. 8843 of 2025
Bench: Justice A.S. Supehia, Justice Pranav Trivedi
