Page No.1 of 4 IN TAXC-20-2025 2025:CGHC:48100-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TAXC No. 20 of 2025 M/s Kalptaru Power Transmission Ltd. Abhanpur, Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant Versus Commissioner Of Commercial Tax, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Sahu, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 18.09.2025 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J 1. The present application for calling substantial questions of law under Section 55 (2) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'VAT Act, 2005') has been filed against the order dated 23/09/2024, passed by learned Commercial Tax Tribunal, Raipur, whereby the Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Tribunal Raipur has dismissed the application for referring the question of law filed by the applicant in Reference Case No. SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 4 IN TAXC-20-2025 Ref./16/226/2024/ET to this Court. 2. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the issue pertains to Chhattisgarh Entry Tax Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1976’) and arises out of an assessment year of 2012-13. On 24.01.2017 an assessment order was passed allowing the claim for refund, however, subsequently, by order dated 11.09.2017, exercising power under Section 22 (1) of CG VAT Act, 2005, the refund was rejected. Against the order dated 11.09.2017, appeal under Section 48(1) of the Act of 2005 was filed. The appeal was dismissed on 11.09.2018 on the ground of unjust enrichment. 3. It is further contended on behalf of the applicant that principle of unjust enrichment finds place in the VAT Act, 2005. Section 37 of the VAT Act, 2005 has been omitted by the legislature in the Chhattisgarh Entry Tax Act, therefore, the provisions of Section 37 of the VAT Act, 2005 cannot be made applicable, however, since the finding was against the applicant, a second appeal was preferred before the C.G. Commercial Tax Tribunal. The Appeal was dismissed on 24.06.2024 and again a reference was filed under Section 55 (1) of the VAT Act, 2005 for referring substantial questions of law for consideration before this Court. The application was dismissed on 29.03.2024. Hence this appeal. 4. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent- State that tax liability has not been borne by the applicant, Page No.3 of 4 IN TAXC-20-2025 therefore, refund would be unjust enrichment and no reference is required as on facts, the applicant was not able to demonstrate that the tax was paid by him. 5. Section 13 of the Act, 1976 incorporates different provisions by reference of C.G. VAT. The said rejection of reference appears to be, prima facie, wrong which on plain reading do not include Section 37 of the VAT Act, 2005 and forfeiture power is in sub-section (3) of Section 37 of the VAT Act, 2005. Reading of Section 13 of the Act, 1976, wherein different sections are incorporated prima facie would show the exclusion of Section 37 of the Act, 1976 it has been omitted. The submission of the petitioner, therefore, needs to be examined. 6. Accordingly, in exercise of power under Section 55 (2) of the VAT Act, 2005 the Tribunal is called upon to make a reference on the following substantial question of law : “a) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal is justified in rejecting the claim of the applicant for refund of excess Entry Tax paid it despite the fact that under the Entry Tax Act the legislature has deliberately not adopted Section 37 of the VAT Act which relates to forfeiture of amounts due to unjust enrichment ? b) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the Page No.4 of 4 IN TAXC-20-2025 case the learned Tribunal is justified in reading the doctrine of unjust enrichment into the Entry Tax Act to supply a deliberate omission by legislature under the guise of interpretation based upon a general principle of justice and equality?” 7. It is ordered accordingly. 8. Consequently, the present application is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No cost. 9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned tribunal for information and compliance. sd/- sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge s@if