This compilation indexes 12 judicial rulings — spanning the Orissa, Bombay, Gujarat, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, and Punjab & Haryana High Courts, as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Bangalore) — in which Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (and, in one instance, Section 9(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957) was cited as a principal or ancillary provision. The rulings are drawn from the period July 2019 to March 2023. This index is intended for use by in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law-firm researchers who need a structured reference to proceedings in which Section 9(2) was engaged across different jurisdictions and factual contexts.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference compiled from publicly available judicial orders. It is not legal advice, and nothing here should be relied upon as a substitute for reading the full judgment or obtaining professional counsel.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 provides the mechanism by which state sales-tax authorities assess, re-assess, and collect tax on inter-state sales: it directs that the authorities of the state from which the movement of goods commences shall have jurisdiction, and it applies — with the necessary modifications — the provisions of the general sales-tax law of that state (including provisions relating to returns, assessment, reassessment, appeals, penalties, and collection) to taxes levied under the CST Act. Because it is an adopting or incorporating provision, its application in any given case is read together with the corresponding procedural rules of the relevant state (for example, the Central Sales Tax (Odisha) Rules, 1957 in Odisha matters). In some of the cases indexed below, Section 9(2) appears in its entirely separate statutory avatar under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, where it governs the payment of royalty by lessees of mineral mines — a distinct legal context that is noted case by case in the entries below.

The 12 rulings

1. Afr vs State Of Odisha

Bench: Orissa High Court
Date: 29 March 2023
Sections engaged: 9(2), 43
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (STREV No. 47 of 2017) was filed before the Orissa High Court under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with Rule 22 of the Central Sales Tax (Odisha) Rules, 1957, further read with Section 80 of the Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004. The source preview discloses a tabular assessment matrix: gross turnover and taxable turnover were each determined at Rs. 2,86,41,600; tax assessed was Rs. 9,94,828 against tax paid of Rs. 9,33,802, leaving a balance tax of Rs. 61,026; the penalty imposed by the Sales Tax Officer was Rs. 1,22,052, which the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax reduced to Rs. 30,000, bringing the total amount payable down from Rs. 1,83,078 to Rs. 91,026. The petitioner (identified in the source preview as M/s Sri Padmavati Cashew Industries) challenged the order of the appellate authority before the High Court; the dispositive outcome is not specified in the available source data.

2. M/S. General Traders vs State Of Odisha Represented Through

Bench: Orissa High Court
Date: 8 December 2022
Sections engaged: 5(3), 9(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (STREV No. 64 of 2017) was filed by M/s. General Traders, Berhampur, a partnership firm, before the Orissa High Court at Cuttack. Per the source preview, the petitioner assailed Order dated 18.05.2017 in Second Appeal No. 58(C) of 2015-16 passed by the Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack, which itself arose from an Audit Assessment framed under Rule 12(3) of the Central Sales Tax (Odisha) Rules, 1957 by the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ganjam Range, Berhampur. The source preview indicates the matter involved particulars of goods and details regarding export; the dispositive outcome is not specified in the available source data.

3. Birsa Minerex vs Sales Tax Officer

Bench: Orissa High Court
Date: 17 November 2022
Sections engaged: 9(2), 5(3)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: In W.P.(C) No. 21222 of 2015, the petitioner Birsa Minerex, a partnership firm, invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Orissa High Court at Cuttack, challenging an Order dated 28.01.2014 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Barbil Circle, Barbil, who had framed assessment under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with Rule 12(4) of the Central Sales Tax (Odisha) Rules, 1957, raising a demand of Rs. 39,68,397/- pertaining to the tax periods from 01.07.2007 to 31.03.2010. The reassessment proceeding culminated in a demand comprising tax of Rs. 13,22,799/- and penalty of Rs. 26,45,598/-; the petitioner also questioned the rejection of its rectification petition under the Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004. The dispositive outcome is not specified in the available source data.

4. M/S Subex Technologies Limited vs Jcit, Bangalore

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
Date: 6 September 2022
Sections engaged: 9(1)(vii), 9(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Two consolidated appeals — ITA No. 715/Bang/2014 and IT(TP)A No. 2638/Bang/2019, both for Assessment Year 2008-2009 — were heard together by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Benches "C", as common issues were raised. The source preview identifies the appellants as M/s. Subex Technologies Limited (PAN: AAICS9433Q) and M/s. Subex Limited (PAN: AABCS9255R), both against the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 12(3), Bangalore. Per the source preview, the solitary issue raised in both appeals concerned disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act involving a sum of Rs. 62,49,85,438 in one of the cases; the dispositive outcome is not specified in the available source data.

5. Aegis Beverages Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bench: Chattisgarh High Court
Date: 11 May 2022
Sections engaged: 2(d), 9(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WPT No. 134 of 2019) was filed before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, reserved on 26-04-2022 and pronounced on 11-05-2022. The petitioner, Aegis Beverages Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, with a registered office in Kolkata and a unit at Plot No. 41, Sector-B Sirgitti Industrial Growth Centre, Bilaspur, challenged the respondents — including the State of Chhattisgarh (Finance Department) and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The source preview references a list of excluded commodities (petroleum crude, high speed diesel, motor spirit, natural gas, aviation turbine fuel, and alcoholic liquor for human consumption) in the context of the applicable statutory framework; the dispositive outcome is not specified in the available source data.

6. United Spirits Limited vs State Of Maharashtra And 2 Ors

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 29 April 2022
Sections engaged: 9(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed as Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 10092 of 2020 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction. The petitioner, M/s. United Spirits Limited, with its corporate office at Marathon Futurex, Lower Parel, Mumbai, arrayed as respondents the State of Maharashtra (through the Commissioner of Sales Tax), the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, the Assistant Value Added Tax Officer (VAT & UTGST Department, Navi Daman), and two private parties. The source preview is primarily procedural, disclosing the constitution of the bench and appearances of counsel; the substantive grounds and dispositive outcome are not specified in the available source data.

7. 2 04.11.2020 Heard Learned Counsel For vs Unknown

Bench: Orissa High Court
Date: 4 November 2020
Sections engaged: 66D, 9(2), 9B(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: In W.P.(C) No. 29364 of 2020, Ghanashyama Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd., a private limited company, filed a writ petition before the Orissa High Court assailing the legality of imposition of service tax on royalty and allied charges paid by the petitioner on minerals extracted by virtue of a mining lease granted by the Government. Per the source preview, the petitioner is a lessee of iron ore mines at Gorumahisiani in the district of Mayurbjhanj, Odisha, and had been paying royalty under Section 9(2) of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (as amended), along with contributions to the District Mineral Foundation under Section 9B(5) of that Act. The matter was heard by video conferencing mode; the dispositive outcome is not specified in the available source data.

8. Unknown vs Hon'Ble The Chief Justice Mr. Mohammad

Bench: Orissa High Court
Date: 22 October 2020
Sections engaged: 66D, 9(2), 9B(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: In W.P.(C) No. 15921 of 2020, Lal Traders & Agencies Pvt. Ltd., a private limited company, filed a writ petition before the Orissa High Court challenging the imposition of service tax on royalty and allied charges paid by the petitioner on minerals extracted by virtue of a mining lease. Per the source preview, the petitioner is a lessee of iron ore mines at Badam Pahar in the district of Mayurbjhanj, Odisha, and had been paying royalty under Section 9(2) of the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (as amended), and contributions to the District Mineral Foundation under Section 9B(5) of that Act. The matter was heard by video conferencing mode; the dispositive outcome is not specified in the available source data.

9. Haidarsha Abdulsha Pir Through His Son vs State Of Gujarat

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 18 September 2020
Sections engaged: 2(c), 9(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed as R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 537 of 2020 (arising from R/Special Civil Application No. 9868 of 2020) before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The source preview is primarily procedural in nature, disclosing standard reporting questions and the constitution of the bench; per the source preview, the appellant came to be preventively detained and the substantive grounds of the challenge are not fully reproduced in the available text. The dispositive outcome is not specified in the available source data.

10. M/S Advanced Systek Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Gujarat

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 24 July 2020
Sections engaged: 34, 9(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The matter came before the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad as R/Tax Appeal No. 652 of 2017 read with R/Special Civil Application No. 8391 of 2019. Per the source preview, the petitioner (Advanced Systek Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956) filed the Special Civil Application through its director seeking a direction to the respondents to comply with the order dated 17.04.2017 passed by the Gujarat authority. The source preview is primarily procedural; the substantive grounds and dispositive outcome are not specified in the available source data.

11. Commissioner Of Customs, Amritsar vs M/S Krishna Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 19 December 2019
Sections engaged: 130, 9(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The Appellant-Commissioner of Customs, Custom Commissionerate, Ludhiana, filed CUSAP No. 5 of 2017 (O&M) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, seeking to quash the order dated 27.09.2016 whereby the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh had allowed the appeal of the respondent. Per the source preview, the questions of law raised by the Appellant included whether CESTAT was justified in holding that cost recovery charges cannot be collected after the coming into operation of HCCAR, 2009 and whether, once benchmark performance was achieved by the respondent, there was no need to pay cost recovery charges automatically thereafter. The dispositive outcome is not specified in the available source data.

12. The State Of Rajasthan vs Asi Industries Limited

Bench: Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Date: 16 July 2019
Sections engaged: 2(52), 9(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 41/2019) was filed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, by the State of Rajasthan (through the Principal Secretary, Department of Finance), the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, and the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle-II, Kota, arraying as respondents ASI Industries Limited (formerly Associated Stones Industries Kotah Limited), the Union of India, and Indian Oil Corporation Limited. The source preview is primarily procedural and discloses reference to a prior ruling of the Orissa High Court in N.K. Bhojani (P) Ltd.; the substantive grounds and dispositive outcome are not specified in the available source data.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Multi-statute invoking of "Section 9(2)." A recurring feature across this set is that the label "Section 9(2)" attaches to at least two distinct statutes: the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Cases 1–6, 10, 12) and the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (Cases 7 and 8). Researchers should confirm, from the full judgment, which statutory framework a given Section 9(2) reference is anchored to before drawing conclusions.
Orissa High Court as the most frequent forum. Five of the twelve cases (Cases 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8) were decided by the Orissa High Court at Cuttack, and all five involve either the Central Sales Tax Act framework as applied through the Central Sales Tax (Odisha) Rules, 1957, or the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. This concentration suggests that Section 9(2) litigation — in both its CST and MMDR avatars — has been especially active in Odisha-jurisdiction courts during the period covered.
Writ jurisdiction (Article 226) as a common procedural vehicle. Several cases in this compilation (Cases 3, 7, 8, 5, and 9) reached the High Court through writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, rather than through the ordinary appeals/revision hierarchy. This pattern indicates that petitioners have frequently invoked constitutional writ jurisdiction to challenge Section 9(2) assessment or levy orders, suggesting disputes over jurisdictional or fundamental procedural defects rather than purely factual disagreements.
Absence of a disclosed dispositive outcome across all 12 cases. Every case in this compilation carries the outcome designation "Outcome not specified in source." Researchers must obtain the full judgment text to determine the actual holding. No conclusion about the direction of judicial opinion on Section 9(2) can be drawn from the data reproduced here.
Intersection with allied tax regimes and statutes. The cases engage a variety of companion provisions — including sections of the Odisha VAT Act, the Customs Act, the Central Goods and Services Tax framework (service tax on royalty), and transfer-pricing provisions of the Income Tax Act — alongside Section 9(2). This breadth signals that Section 9(2) disputes rarely arise in isolation and routinely require examination of the procedural rules of the state's general sales-tax law or of the broader regulatory framework governing the underlying transaction.

How to use this compilation

This compilation is a navigational index, not a substitute for primary source research. Each entry identifies the forum, date, and sections cited as extracted from the source data; it does not reproduce the full reasoning of the court or tribunal. Before relying on any ruling for a submission, opinion, or compliance position, researchers should retrieve the complete judgment from indiankanoon.org, the official court portal, or a verified legal database and verify that the text matches the order reference disclosed here.

Researchers should also check whether any of these orders have been stayed, reversed, remanded, or affirmed by a higher court subsequent to the date shown. Indian tax litigation frequently involves multiple rounds of adjudication — ITAT to High Court to Supreme Court — and an order that is listed here as the terminus of the source data may have been the subject of subsequent proceedings not captured in this compilation.

Finally, Section 9(2) of the CST Act interacts closely with state-specific rules (such as the CST (Odisha) Rules, 1957, the CST (Gujarat) Rules, or the CST (Rajasthan) Rules) and with CBDT or state-government circulars that modify procedural timelines or assessment parameters. Researchers should cross-check applicable CBDT instructions, state commercial-tax department circulars, and any notifications issued under the relevant state VAT or GST legislation that may govern the procedural aspects of the dispute in question.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 9(2) Central Sales Tax Act: 12 High Court & ITAT Rulings (2019–2023)