State of Gujarat v. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: Section 49(2) of Gujarat Sales Tax Act 1969 read with notification issued there under

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• *State of Gujarat Vs Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited* *Forum-Supreme Court of India* *Date-21st January 2022* *Sub-Whether exemption for payment of purchase tax on purchase of Naptha and Natural gas to be used by Steel making unit can be allowed even when the said raw materials are used not directly but indirectly.* The Supreme Court of India in this case was dealing with interpretation of an exemption notification issued under the Gujarat Sales tax Act 1969 whereby the respondent in this case was allowed exemption from purchase tax on fulfilment of certain conditions as per the Notification which interalia provided that the purchases so made must be utilised by the eligible entity itself and the exemption was specifically denied to power producing entities. The respondent in this case which was earlier known as Essar Steels Ltd after purchasing Naptha and natural gas sold…
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7710-7714 OF 2021 State of Gujarat …Appellant(s) Versus Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited …Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Gujarat dated 06.05.2016 passed in Tax Appeal Nos. 136 of 2016 to 140 of 2016 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeals preferred by the State and has upheld the common order dated 29.01.2015 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Second Appeal Nos.420 to 423 of 2013 by which the Tribunal held that the respondent is entitled to the exemption from payment of amount of sales tax as per the original Entry No.255(2) vide F.D.’s Notification dated 05.03.1992, which was issued under Section 49(2) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1969”), the State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeals.

2. That the respondent herein – assessee -dealer (earlier known as Essar Steel Ltd.) is engaged in the activity of manufacture and sale of Hot Briquetted Iron (HBI) and Hot Rolled Coil (HRC) at its two units located at Hazira in Surat, Gujarat. The respondent holds registration certificate under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The respondent made eligible investment in Unit No.1 pursuant to Resolution dated 07.05.1986 issued by the Industries, Mines and Energy Department of the Government of Gujarat. Therefore, the respondent was certified as entitled to avail incentives during the eligible period from 01.08.1990 to 31.07.2004 up to the upper monetary limit of Rs.237.59 crores. 2.1 The Government of Gujarat vide Resolution dated 26.07.1991 announced a scheme known as "The Scheme for Special Incentives to Prestigious Units 1990-95 (modified)" for attracting investments in core sector industries. Under the said scheme, a prestigious unit was eligible for incentives up to 90% of the fixed capital investment. That pursuant to the said Scheme, the respondent – Essar Steel Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “ESL”) invested approximately Rs.5000 crores for manufacture of HRC. That the said exemption was provided as per Entry 255 of the notification issued by the Government of Gujarat under Section 49(2) of the Act, 1969. That the Unit No.2 of the ESL was granted Sales Tax

stores in its industrial unit for which it has obtained the eligibility certificate, for the manufacture of goods in its industrial unit as per the conditions provided under the three notifications. 2.7 On commissioning of the Unit No.2, the Natural Gas and Naphtha purchased by the respondent – ESL, against declarations in Form No.26 were sold to Essar Power Limited (another company) (hereinafter referred to as “EPL”) and the EPL utilized the Natural Gas and Naphtha purchased from ESL for the purpose of generating/manufacturing electricity, which came to be sold to the ESL by the EPL. It is the case on behalf of the respondent – ESL that the said electricity generated by EPL was used by it for the purpose of manufacturing HRC in its industrial unit. 2.8 The Officers of the Sales Tax conducted a surprise visit at the premises of the respondent – ESL in the month of July, 2001. A notice was issued by the Sales Tax Officer calling for certain information including details of branch transfers, deemed exports, transfer of finished goods etc. The Sales Tax Department thereafter raised a dispute inter alia regarding breach of declaration given in Form No.26 while purchasing Naphtha/Natural Gas having been committed by the respondent – ESL on the ground that the goods so purchased were transferred to EPL for generation of electricity, which was then used in

Unit No.2 for the manufacture of HRC. A notice was issued on 30.06.2002 by the Sales Tax Officer calling upon the ESL to give clarification in respect of the purported breach of conditions of exemptions, including the transfer of Naphtha/Natural Gas to EPL for generation of electricity. That the Assessing Officer passed the Assessment Orders in respect of Unit No.2 for Assessment Years 19951996 to 1997-1998 and 2000-2001 holding inter alia that no tax was due and payable by the respondent – ESL on account of any purported breach of the conditions of the exemption admissible under Entry 255(2). 2.9 Subsequently, a notice dated 30.05.2005 came to be issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax for initiating levy of purchase tax of Rs.480.99 crores and for levying penalty for the period 1995-1996 to 2005-2006 on the ground that the respondent – ESL has contravened the provisions of the Act, more particularly, Entry No.255 and availed the exemption wrongly. The respondent - ESL filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner. By order dated 28.03.2006, the High Court restrained the departmental authorities from implementing or enforcing the assessment orders subject to the condition that in respect of Unit No.2, the respondent – ESL should deposit 50% of the tax dues within the time stipulated in the order. The assessment orders by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax came to be challenged by way of appeals before the Joint

Commissioner. The Joint Commissioner – the first Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.04.2013 imposed purchase tax under Section 50 of the Act for the years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. However, the first Appellate Authority accepted in the first appeal that till the amendment took place in Entry No.255 on 14.11.2000, even if the purchased goods were used for manufacture at any place in the State of Gujarat, there was no breach of the conditions stipulated in Form No.26 and for the said assessment years, the purchase tax together with interest and penalty imposed came to be set aside. Thus, the Joint Commissioner/first Appellate Authority confirmed the levy of purchase tax in respect of the purchase of goods till 14.11.2000. 2.10 Being aggrieved against the order passed by the Joint Commissioner dated 30.04.2013, both, the respondent -dealer – ESL and the State Government preferred the appeals before the Tribunal. That by order dated 29.01.2015, the Tribunal allowed the second appeals preferred by the respondent- ESL holding that the respondent – ESL is not liable to pay any tax, interest or penalty on the disputed transactions and dismissed the cross objections of the State. 2.11 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the orders passed by the Tribunal allowing the second appeals preferred by the respondent – dealer - assessee and dismissing the cross objection preferred by the

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

State and holding that the respondent – ESL is not liable to pay any tax, interest or penalty on the disputed transactions, the State preferred the present appeals before the High Court being Tax Appeal Nos. 136 of 2016 to 140 of 2016. By impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said appeals mainly on the ground of promissory estoppel and also observing that the respondent – ESL has not violated any of the conditions provided under the original Entry No.255(2) dated 05.03.1992. 2.12 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, the State has preferred the present appeals. 3. Shri Maninder Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant – State of Gujarat has vehemently submitted that the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court is patently erroneous and unsustainable. 3.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State that in the present case, the Notification dated 05.03.1992 can be said to be a parent notification and all other subsequent Notifications dated 14.11.2000 and 16.01.2002 were either clarificatory in nature and/or expanding the scope of

It is further submitted that the aforesaid findings that to deny the exemption to the respondent – ESL under the parent Entry No. 255(2) dated 05.03.1992 would be denying the respondent – ESL the facility of using the electricity generated by EPL is absolutely erroneous and is unsustainable. It is submitted that the arrangement between the respondent –assessee – ESL and EPL as such has no bearing on the liability of the respondent – assessee to fulfill its tax obligation. It is submitted that even otherwise in the present case, the raw materials – Naphtha and Natural Gas purchased by the eligible unit – ESL though was required to be used by Essar Steel in its own units, the ESL sold the same to the EPL and EPL used the said raw materials for generation of electricity, which came to be sold to the ESL under the power purchase agreement.

4. Present appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri Ritin Rai, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent – assessee. 4.1 It is submitted that the respondent was previously named as Essar Steel Ltd., which was then changed to Essar Steel India Limited (ESIL). It is submitted that Essar Steel India Limited was admitted into insolvency under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC") on 02.08.2017 and the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process has been concluded in the approval of a Resolution Plan for ESIL submitted by Arcelor Mittal India Private Limited, which has been upheld by this Court vide its judgment and order in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 531). It is submitted that pursuant to the same, the 100% shareholding of the respondent- Essar Steel India Limited now vests with the Arcelor Mittal India Private Limited. It is submitted that even subsequently, the name of ESIL has been changed to Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited. 4.2 It is submitted by Shri Rai, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent that in the present case there are concurrent findings in favour of the original writ petitioner - respondent herein by both, the Tribunal as well as the High Court, whereby it is held that the Essar Steel Ltd. is eligible for exemption under the parent Entry No.255(2) vide F.D.’s Notification dated 05.03.1992. It is submitted that

Revenue / respondent submissions

the respondent undertook investment of approximately Rs.5,000 crores for the manufacture of HRC in its second unit (Unit No. 2) and it was entitled to incentives during the eligible period from 22.02.1993 to 21.02.2007 up to the monetary limit of Rs. 2050 crores. It is submitted that for Unit No. 2 as an eligible unit, the respondent was entitled to exemption under Entry 255 of the Notification issued by the Government of Gujarat under Section 49(2) of the Act, 1969. 4.5 It is further submitted that the respondent, in accordance with the eligibility certificate and the exemption granted as aforesaid, availed exemption from payment of purchase tax and sales-tax. It is submitted that as such the respondent had always intended to install a captive power plant up to 200 MW, but due to the requirement of the appellantState, a separate power plant was commissioned by Essar Power Limited, a group company of erstwhile Essar Steel India Limited. It is submitted that on commissioning of Unit No. 2, Natural Gas and Naphtha purchased by the respondent – Essar Steel Ltd. against declarations in Form No.26 were converted into electricity through Essar Power Limited and utilized as an input for the purpose of manufacturing HRC in the industrial unit of the respondent – ESL. It is submitted that this was done by nature of a job-work arrangement and after complying with all the necessary statutory formalities from 1994-95.

4.10 It is submitted that as per the settled law, while deciding whether an entity is entitled to incentives, a strict interpretation of the provisions should be made. However, after accepting that an entity is entitled to the incentives, when determining any questions arising qua the scope of the incentives, a liberal approach should be adopted. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU and Anr. Vs. Amara Raja Batteries Limited, (2009) 8 SCC 209. 4.11 It is submitted that admittedly, the respondent's Unit No.2 was eligible to get the exemption prior to the second notification. The appellant - State did not raise any objection, nor did they levy any tax liability prior to the second notification. It is submitted that rather vide letter dated 16.08.2002 issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the appellant – State confirmed that there has been no breach by the respondent. It is submitted that therefore, once the Unit No.2 was found to be eligible under the parent notification, unless it changed its modus operandi, it ought to have been given the exemption under the first/parent notification. 4.12 It is further submitted that it was never the case on behalf of the State that the respondent was in breach of the first/parent notification. It merely alleged that the conditions as substituted under second

notification have been violated. It is submitted that therefore it is imperative to assess if the second and third notifications were at all applicable to the respondent – Essar Steel Ltd. 4.13 It is submitted that in any event the first/parent notification also stated that “if the eligible unit fulfills the conditions specified hereunder and further conditions as may be laid down from time to time”. It is submitted that while the appellant State may further add to the conditions provided under the first/parent notification, such further additional condition could not be in effect to alter/amend the original condition, i.e., the goods are to be used within the State of Gujarat. 4.14 It is submitted that by the second notification, the original eligibility condition was amended and the requirement of use within the State of Gujarat was changed to within the industrial unit for which the eligibility certificate was obtained. It is submitted that this change in the original condition was not permitted since the first/parent notification only stipulated imposition of additional conditions and did not envisage an amendment of the original condition. 4.15 It is further submitted that the second notification would be applicable only for the industries that were setup after 14.11.2000. It is submitted that the first notification was issued pursuant to the incentive

4.27 It is further submitted that even otherwise in any case the imposition of penalty by the State upon the respondent is illegal and without any basis in law. It is submitted that (a) the respondent has not breached the conditions as stipulated in the first notification; (b) the second and the third notifications are not applicable to the respondent and; (c) even assuming that the second and third notifications are applicable to the respondent, the conditions therein have not been breached by the respondent, the question of imposition of penalty would not arise. 4.28 It is further submitted that even otherwise, the State has mechanically imposed the penalty, at the maximum rate of 150%,

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

exemption. It is submitted that in any case, subsequent Notifications dated 14.11.2000 and 16.01.2002 amending the original Entry No.255(2) cannot be said to be taking away any rights, which were conferred under the parent Notification dated 05.03.1992. It is submitted that therefore there is no question of the promissory estoppel as applied by the High Court and the Tribunal. 3.2 It is submitted by Shri Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State that as per the original Notification dated 05.03.1992 and as per the original Entry No. 255(2) and the statutory Form No.26, it is abundantly clear that the parent Notification dated 05.03.1992 extends the exemption only to ‘the eligible unit’ for utilizing the raw materials for manufacture of goods in that unit itself. It is submitted that the wordings used in the notification are clear and unambiguous that the exemption shall become available only if the said eligible unit utilizes the raw materials for manufacture of goods in the very same ‘eligible unit’. It is submitted that therefore the raw materials – Naphtha and Natural Gas were required to be used by the ‘eligible unit – Essar Steel Ltd.’ in the very same steel unit and for manufacture of the steel only. 3.3 It is submitted that if the interpretation made by the High Court and the Tribunal is accepted, in that case, even when the eligible unit does not itself utilizes the raw materials, it may, after availing the exemption,

3.7 It is submitted that as per the law laid down by this Court in catena of decisions, the provisions of an exemption notification are to be construed strictly. It is submitted that even in the case of any perceived ambiguity, the provision has to be construed in favour of the Revenue. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar and Company and Others, (2018) 9 SCC 1 (para 66) as well as another decision of this Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. Etc. Etc. Vs. V.V.F. Limited and Another, Etc. Etc., (2020) SCC Online SC 378 (paras 53-55). 3.8 It is further submitted by Shri Maninder Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the State that what is weighed with High Court that levy of the purchase tax is hit by the principle of promissory estoppel by observing that by the subsequent Notifications dated 14.11.2000 and 16.01.2002, the State could not have taken the rights which are available under the parent Notification dated 05.03.1992. 3.9 It is submitted that as such the subsequent Notification dated 14.11.2000 can be said to be clarificatory in nature and therefore, conditions provided in the parent Entry No. 255(2) dated 05.03.1992 cannot be said to have been affected by subsequent notifications. It is

submitted that as such by the subsequent Notification dated 14.11.2000, the conditions in the original Entry No. 255(2) dated 05.03.1992 have been explicitly made clear and as such there is no basic modification of the conditions imposed in the parent Entry No.255(2) dated 05.03.1992. It is submitted that both the Notifications dated 05.03.1992 and 14.11.2000 provided the basic condition that the eligible unit shall have to furnish to the selling dealer a certificate in Form No.26 that the raw materials purchased shall be used as input in its industrial unit only. It is therefore submitted that as such the subsequent Notification dated 14.11.2000 by no stretch of imagination can be said to be modifying the basic conditions of availing the exemption provided in the parent Entry No.255(2) dated 05.03.1992. 3.10 It is submitted that as such the clarificatory notification dated 14.11.2000 had made it abundantly clear and beyond any pale of doubt that any such exemption on purchase of raw materials, shall be available only to the unit when it is consuming the raw materials for manufacture of goods in the very same unit. It is submitted that it is a settled position of law that any such amendment being only clarificatory in nature, applies to all entities uniformly and from the date of original notification granting the exemption itself. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the cases of Union of India and Anr. Etc. Etc. Vs. V.V.F. Limited and Another, Etc. Etc. (supra) and Bengaluru Development

Authority Vs. Sudhakar Hegde and Ors., (2020) 15 SCC 63 (paras 32 to 35). It is submitted that therefore the view taken by the High Court in the impugned judgment that the Notification dated 14.11.2000 would apply only to such units, which get established after 14.11.2000 is unsustainable and deserves to be reversed by this Court. 3.11 It is further submitted that even the further amended Entry No. 255(2) dated 16.01.2002 can be said to be expanding the scope of eligibility for availing the exemption. It is submitted that the subsequent Entry No. 255(2) dated 16.01.2002 cannot be said to be taking away something what was provided in the parent Entry No. 255(2) dated 05.03.1992. it is submitted that therefore the High Court has erred in applying the principle of promissory estoppel to hold that by subsequent notifications the benefit of exemption under Entry No.255(2) dated 05.03.1992 cannot be taken away. 3.12 It is further submitted by Shri Maninder Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the State that even the High Court has erred in observing that denying the benefit of exemption under 1992 notification would result in denying the respondent – ESL facility of using the electricity generated by EPL. It is submitted that the said finding of the High Court is patently erroneous and unsustainable. It is submitted that as per the settled proposition of law, any tax exemption granted

therefore, as such the EPL was not eligible for exemption under parent Entry No.255(2) dated 05.03.1992 and, thus, through the circuitous methodology or modus operandi, the EPL got the benefit of exemption though ‘not eligible’.

submitted that that does not take away the right of the State to levy the tax, which otherwise is permissible under the law and which is levied in accordance with law. 3.15 It is further submitted that in the present case, considering the modus operandi adopted by the ESL and the EPL and despite being fully aware of the clear and unambiguous terms of the exemption notification and despite the power producing companies were specifically made ‘ineligible’ for availing the exemption and despite the fact that as per the conditions provided in the parent Entry, the raw materials – Naphtha and Natural Gas were required to be used by the assessee – ESL in its own unit, the raw materials came to be sold to an ‘ineligible’ entity – EPL and the ‘ineligible unit’ indirectly/directly got the benefit of exemption though not entitled to and/or eligible and used the said raw materials in their own unit for generation of electricity, the respondent – assessee is liable to pay the penalty in terms of Section 45(5). It is submitted that therefore the orders passed by the Joint Commissioner setting aside the penalty confirmed by the Tribunal and the High Court also deserve to be quashed and set aside. 3.16 Making above submissions and relying upon the above decisions, it is prayed to allow the present appeals.

Operative decision and relief

without any application of mind or adjudication. It is submitted that therefore, the imposition of penalty without appreciating the factual circumstances surrounding the dispute is arbitrary, unjust, and illegal, and therefore the Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble High Court has rightly set aside the imposition of penalty. 4.29 It is further submitted that as held by this Court in several judgments the imposition of penalty is the result of a quasi-criminal adjudication. Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa, (1969) 2 SCC 627 and Excel Crop Care Limited Vs. Competition Commission of India and Anr., (2017) 8 SCC 47. 4.30 It is submitted that in the facts of the present case the respondent had been under a genuine bona fide belief that it was eligible to claim exemption under the first notification based on the declaration made in Form No. 26 and that the amended notifications would not govern the respondent since the incentives had been assured under the Scheme for a fixed period of time and such belief of the incentive was also upheld by the letter dated 16.08.2002 issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, which confirmed that there has been no breach by the respondent and that the State has not made out a case of mala fide intention or willful

well as that of the Tribunal quashing and setting aside the demand of purchase tax from the respondent are hereby quashed and set aside. It is held that the respondent -Essar Steel Ltd. – the eligible unit was not entitled to the exemption from payment of purchase tax under the original Entry No.255(2) dated 05.03.1992, firstly, on the ground that it did not fulfill the eligibility criteria/conditions mentioned in the original Entry No.255(2) dated 05.03.1992 and secondly that there was a breach of declaration in Form No.26 furnished by the respondent – eligible unit – Essar Steel Ltd. The orders setting aside the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer are also hereby quashed and set aside. The order passed by the Assessing Officer levying the demand of purchase tax and imposing the penalty is hereby restored.

25. Present appeals are accordingly allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH] NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J. JANUARY 21, 2022. [SANJIV KHANNA]

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with State of Gujarat v. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited concerns *state of gujarat vs arcelor mittal nippon steel india limited* *forum-supreme court of india* *date-21st january 2022* *sub-whether exemption for payment of purchase tax on purchase of naptha and natural gas to be used by steel making unit can be allowed even when the said raw materials are used not directly but indirectly.* the supreme court of india in this case was dealing with interpretation of an exemption notification issued under the gujarat sales tax act 1969 whereby the respondent in this case was allowed exemption from purchase tax on fulfilment of certain conditions as per the notification which interalia provided that the purchases so made must be utilised by the eligible entity itself and the exemption was specifically denied to power producing entities. the respondent in this case which was earlier known as essar steels ltd after purchasing naptha and natural gas sold… The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7710-7714 OF 2021.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Quashed / set aside” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: *State of Gujarat Vs Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited* *Forum-Supreme Court of India* *Date-21st January 2022* *Sub-Whether exemption for payment of purchase tax on purchase of Naptha and Natural gas to be used by Steel making unit can be allowed even when the said raw materials are used not directly but indirectly.* The Supreme Court of India in this case was dealing with interpretation of an exemption notification issued under the Gujarat Sales tax Act 1969 whereby the respondent in this case was allowed exemption from purchase tax on fulfilment of certain conditions as per the Notification which interalia provided that the purchases so made must be utilised by the eligible entity itself and the exemption was specifically denied to power producing entities. The respondent in this case which was earlier known as Essar Steels Ltd after purchasing Naptha and natural gas sold… Its practical value lies in the way the Supreme Court of India connected the governing provisions—Section 49(2) of Gujarat Sales Tax Act 1969 read with notification issued there under—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is Supreme Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of Section 49(2) of Gujarat Sales Tax Act 1969 read with notification issued there under and the decision date 2022-01-21; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is State of Gujarat v. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited, the proceeding is CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7710-7714 OF 2021, and the decision is dated 2022-01-21. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as M.R. Shah, J. (authoring judge identified in judgment). A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with Section 49(2) of Gujarat Sales Tax Act 1969 read with notification issued there under. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Quashed / set aside. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is Review / curative petition docket: check pending. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• Section 49(2) of Gujarat Sales Tax Act 1969 read with notification issued there under — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• UCB India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT — Supreme Court of India · Quashed / set aside
• SPL Labs India Pvt ltd Vs ITO,Circle 6 Bangalore — Supreme Court of India · Quashed / set aside
• M/s Suneja Towers Private Limited & Anr Vs Anita Merchant — Supreme Court of India · Quashed / set aside
• State of Gujarat and Anr Vs Saw Pipes Ltd — Supreme Court of India · Quashed / set aside

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 592 judgments
• Explore Exemptions, Charities & Trusts

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: Official primary text, exact sanitized mirror · Repository status: Published