ORDER : Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner Company for seeking a direction to issue "C" Forms and further to get refund/adjustment of the excess tax said to be collected by the respondents Authorities on account of wrongful refusal of "C" Forms. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5475/2018 (ASI Industries Limited Versus Union of India & Ors.), decided by this Court on 28.09.2018. 3. This Court in the case of ASI Industries Limited Vs. Union of India (supra) had allowed the writ petition on the basis of the judgment passed at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5506/2018 (Hindustan Zinc Limited Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.) The relevant portion of the order passed by the this Court is quoted as under:- "This Court finds that the similar controversy has been decided at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Hindustan Zinc Limited Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) and accordingly, the present writ petition also needs to be allowed. The order passed in the case of Hindustan Zinc Limited Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) is reproduced hereunder:- "Accordingly, the present writ petitions are allowed in the same terms as Corpo Power Limited (supra). It is held that the respondents are liable to issue "C" Forms in respect of the High Speed Diesel procured for mining purposes through interstate trade. In the event of the petitioners having had to pay any amount on account of the respondents wrongful refusal to issue "C" Forms the petitioners shall be entitled to refund and/or adjustment of the same from the concerned authorities who collected the excess tax. The Concerned Authorities shall process such a claim within twelve weeks of the same being made by the petitioners in writing and the petitioners furnishing the requisite documents/form." Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed and the directions given in the case of Hindustan Zinc Limited Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) is applied in the present case as well. It goes without saying that in case, any decision is rendered by the Division Bench or Higher Court, the parties would be bound by the same." 4. Mr. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) is applied in the present case as well. It goes without saying that in case, any decision is rendered by the Division Bench or Higher Court, the parties would be bound by the same." 4. Mr. R.B. Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submitted that against the view taken by this Court in the case of ASI Industries Limited Vs. Union of India (supra), the department filed D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 41/2009 (The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Versus ASI Industries Limited & Ors.), before the Division Bench and the Division Bench vide its order dated 16.07.2019 has decided the said appeal and upheld the order passed by the Single Bench. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Division Bench is quoted as under:- "4. This Court has been informed that the special appeal preferred by the State of Haryana against the decision in Carpo Power Limited (supra) (in SLP No. 20572/2018), was rejected on 13.08.2018. 5. The learned Single Judge in this case relied upon decision in Hindustan Zinc Limited Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2019 (64) GSTR 366 (Raj.), decided on 18.05.2018 where a direction was issued to the State of Rajasthan, to provide relief. This Court notices that in Hindustan Zinc Limited (supra) also relied upon Carpo Power Limited. Further, other High Courts to have followed the said ruling in Carpo Power Limited (supra)-the Madras High Court, in the Ramco Cements Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 2019 (64) GSTR 374 (Mad); the Orissa High Court in N.K. Bhojani (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 2019 (24) GSTL 28; and Star Cement Meghalaya & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., 2019 (21) GSTL 484. 6. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that denial of C Forms is purely on account of exigencies of advent of the GST regime which compelled the assessee to migrate to and obtain GST Registrations which rendered at the same time its CST registrations ineffective. This was inadvertent and beyond its control. 7. Consequently, the directions issued by the learned Single Judge are upheld. The appeal is accordingly dismissed." 5. This was inadvertent and beyond its control. 7. Consequently, the directions issued by the learned Single Judge are upheld. The appeal is accordingly dismissed." 5. This Court finds that the present controversy is squarely covered by the decisions rendered by the Single Bench in the case of ASI Industries (supra) as also affirmed by the Division Bench. 6. The present writ petition accordingly needs to be allowed and it is held that the respondents are liable to issue "C" Forms in respect of High Speed Diesel procured by the petitioner company for mining purpose through inter State trade. In the event of the petitioner having had to pay any amount on account of the respondents wrongful refusal to issue "C" Forms, the petitioner will be entitled to refund/adjustment of the same from the concerned authorities who collected the excess tax. The concerned authorities shall process such claim within 12 weeks of the same being made by the petitioner in writing and the petitioner furnishing the requisite form/document. 7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.