1 / 3 2025:CGHC:47198-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TAXC No. 82 of 2023 Mecon Limited An Govt. Of India Enterprises (Under Ministry Of Steel) Site Office- Ispat Nagar, Bhilai (C.G.) Regd. Office- Situated At Vivekanand Path, Doranda, Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) Through Its Senior Manager Finance, Sudesh Kumar Rathi, S/o Narayan Prasad Rathi, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Qr.No.K-199, Mecon Shyamly Colony, Doranda, Ranchi (Jharkhand) ... Applicant Versus 1 - The Commissioner Of Commercial Tax C.G., C.G.S.T. Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Sector-19 Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The President, C.G. Commercial Tax Tribunal C.G.S.T. Bhavan, Sector- 19 Atal Nagar Naya Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Mool Chand Jain, Advocate. For State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar G.A. 2 / 3 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 15.09.2025 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This is an application under Section 55(2) of the C.G. VAT Act, 2005. 2. The applicant entered into contract with SAIL, Bhilai Steel Plant for supply of ‘Springs for Anchorage’ (Plant & Equipment) under import license of Bhilai Steel Plant. 3. The applicant effected sales of the ‘Springs for Anchorage’ amounting to Rs. 2,63,38,948/- in the course of import of goods from Germany, where it was tailored made as per specification. Bill of lading by German manufacturing Co. was also prepared showing Bhilai Steel Plant as consignee. 4. The applicant claimed deduction under Section 38 (1) (iii) of C.G. Vat Act read with Section 5(2) of the CST Act, 1956 on the ground of sales, however, the assessing authority by order dated 28.08.2018, passed an order and demanded Rs. 1,45,41,896/- and the assessing authority has disallowed the claim. 5. First appeal was dismissed by Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax on 14.11.2019 and Second Appeal was also dismissed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal on 18.04.2022 leading to the filing of application under Section 55 (2) of the Act of 2005. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Tribunal was not 3 / 3 justified in exempting under Section 38 (1) (iii) of C.G. Vat Act. 7. However, learned counsel for the State would submit that the question involved is question of fact that the learned Tribunal was justified. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal is called upon referring the following substantial question of law: “A. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in denying exemption under Section 38 (1) (iii) of the C.G. VAT Act, 2005 read with Section 5 (2) of the CST Act, 1956?” 9. Learned Tribunal is called upon to refer the aforesaid question of law for determination. 10. Accordingly, TAX No. 82 of 2023 is disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE Saurabh