- (1.) M /s Interglobe Aviation Limited through its Airport Manager (for short, 'the petitioner -company'), has yet again approached this Court, by means of these writ petitions, inter -alia, with prayer that the order dated 20.09.2013 passed by respondent no.3 Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Commercial Taxes Department, Circle -C, Ward -II, Jaipur (for short, 'the assessing officer'), be quashed and set aside. Further prayer is made for issuance of a mandamus directing the respondents to return along -with interest the amount of Value Added Tax (for short, 'the VAT') of Rs.85,20,747/ - for the period from 06.01.2007 to 31.03.2007 (Writ Petition No.21473/2013), Rs.6,11,37,585/ - for the year 2007 -08 (Writ Petition No.21474/2013) and Rs.4,12,30,035/ - for the year 2008 -09 (Writ Petition 21475/2013), (for short, referred to as 'first, second and third phase', respectively. This amount of VAT was wrongly collected by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited Jaipur from the petitioner -company, whereas, in view of exemption notifications issued by the State Government, petitioner -company having established a HUB in the State, was fully exempt from such tax during first and second phase and was liable to pay the tax only at the rate of 4% during third phase but was wrongly charged at the rate of 28%.
(2.) PETITIONER -company is engaged in business of civil aviation. It is a registered dealer with the respondent under the Rajasthan Value Aided Tax Act, having its principal place of business in Rajasthan at Jaipur Airport, Sanganer, Jaipur. Its registration certificate includes; Aerated Water, Cookies, Cashew Nuts, Juices, Sandwiches, Health Bar, Confectionery, Tea and Coffee for the sale. In order to boost tourism and industrial activities in the State and attract investment, the respondent State of Rajasthan in exercise of powers under Sections 4 and 8 of the Rajasthan VAT Act, issued a notification dated 31.03.2006, which provided exemption from the VAT on sale of ATF to any airline establishing a HUB in the State, which was valid till one year from the date of commencement. Case of the petitioner -company is that it set up a HUB at Sanganer Airport, Jaipur with the intention of availing benefit of said notification. It started using the said airport for parking aircrafts at night, with the result that its flights started originating from Jaipur. It also established its own maintenance and engineering team for repair and maintenance of aircraft stationed at Jaipur. Besides, pilots of the petitioner -company are based at Airport, Jaipur. Reliance is placed on the certificate issued by the Ministry of Civil Aviation dated 12.01.2009, certifying the fact that the petitioner -company started HUB at Jaipur, connecting Jaipur with Ahmedabad, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Banglore, Mumbai, Chennai and Guwahati. It was commended that in view of the above, petitioner -company should be given exemption of VAT on purchase of ATF as per Government of Rajasthan notification dated 25.02.2008. The Government of Rajasthan later issued another notification under sub -section (3) of Section 8 of the Rajasthan VAT Act, 2003 on 25.02.2008 whereby the sale of ATF was wholly exempt from levy of tax to the extent the rate of tax exceeding 4%, so long the same was made to the airlines having HUB at Rajasthan. According to the petitioner -company, it regularly purchased ATF from Indian Oil Corporation Limited at Sanganer Airport, Jaipur. The Airport Authority of India, Jaipur Airport, Jaipur, vide certificate dated 12.09.2008, has certified that the petitioner -company has been allotted two parking slots for their aircrafts at Jaipur airport. It had been maintaining two nights parking bays at Jaipur Airport during the last winter season. Currently, it was utilizing one parking slot for night parking. It has one base flight originating from Jaipur airport in the morning and that it has its own engineering department at Jaipur.
(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner -company, the sale of ATF was wholly exempt during the period from 06.01.2007 to 05.01.2008, and sale of ATF was liable to tax at the rate of 4% only during the period from 25.02.2008 to 18.01.2009, in view of the notification dated 25.02.2008. Although, of course, sale of ATF to petitioner -company during the intervening period from 06.01.2008 to 24.02.2008, was subject to levy of VAT at the rate of 28% per annum. The petitioner -company purchased ATF during the period from 06.01.2007 to 31.03.2007 from IOCL valued at Rs.3,04,31,241/ - (Rupees three crore four lacs thirty one thousand two hundred forty one), and the IOCL received VAT at the rate of 28% from the petitioner -company amounting to Rs.85,20,747/ - (Rupees eighty five lacs twenty thousand seven hundred forth seven), whereas during this period no VAT should have been charged as ATF was exempt. Copy of the certificate dated 18.08.2009 given by the IOCL, Jaipur, regarding sale of ATF to the petitioner -company and the amount of VAT charged thereupon, has been placed on record. Similarly, the petitioner -company, during the period from 01.04.2007 to 05.01.2008 purchased the ATF valued at Rs.19,23,18,639/ - (Rupees nineteen crores twenty three lacs eighteen thousand six hundred thirty nine) and IOCL charged VAT at the rate of 28% amounting to Rs.5,38,49,219/ - (Rupees five crore thirty eight lacs forty nine thousand two hundred nineteen). Thereafter, during the period from 25.02.2008 to 31.03.2008, the IOCL sold ATF to the petitioner -company valued at Rs.3,03,68,189/ - (Rupees three crore three lacs sixty eight thousand one hundred eighty nine) and charged VAT at the rate of 28% amounting to Rs.85,03,094/ - (Rupees eighty five lacs three thousand ninety four). A copy of the certificate dated 31.08.2009 issued by the IOCL, Jaipur to this effect, has been placed on record. During the period from 01.04.2008 to 18.01.2009, the petitioner -company purchased ATF from IOCL valued at Rs.17,17,91,817/ - (Rupees seventeen crores seventeen lacs ninety one thousand eight hundred and seventeen) and IOCL recovered VAT at the rate of 28% amounting to Rs.4,81,01,708/ - (Rupees four crore eighty one lac one thousand seven hundred and eight). A copy of the certificate dated 18.08.2009 issued by the IOCL is placed on record. It is not in dispute that the tax collected by the IOCL, Jaipur, on the sale of ATF by it to the petitioner -company, has been deposited with the Commercial Taxes Department of the State. The petitioner -company thereafter submitted applications for refund of unduly collected tax. When refund applications were dismissed vide order dated 24.02.2010, petitioner -company approached this court by filing three separate writ petitions, whereunder it assailed three different orders dated 24.02.2010 passed by the same assessing officer (respondent no.3 herein). The writ petitions were opposed by the respondents both on the ground of availability of alternative remedy as also on merits. This court on consideration of the arguments and precedents of the Supreme Court cited at the bar, rejected the objection of alternative remedy, and allowed the writ petitions.;