This court find no merit in the Writ Petition, which deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.
The Scheme of Budgetary Support —– The petitioner challenged the restrictions imposed by the Scheme of Budgetary Support, issued under the GST vide Notification F.No.10(1)/2017-DBAII/NER, dated 05.10.2017, by the Respondent No.1 reducing the quantum of benefits availed earlier. The Petitioner submitted that on 17.02.2003, the Respondent No.1 notified the “New Industrial Policy and other concessions for the State of Sikkim” vide which 100 per cent exemption from Excise duty was granted for a period of ten years. The Budgetary Support Scheme is applicable to the Units which were eligible for drawing benefits under the earlier Excise Duty Exemption/Refund Schemes and was applicable for the remaining period out of the total period not exceeding ten years. The amount of Budgetary Support under the Scheme for specified goods manufactured by the eligible Unit is specified as the sum total of 58 per cent of the Central Tax paid through debit in cash ledger account and 29 per cent of the Integrated Tax paid through debit in cash ledger account. The Excise Duty Exemptions availed by the Petitioner by way of refund in the pre GST regime, for both the Units were curtailed by the Respondent No.1 through the Budgetary Support Policy thereby reducing the benefit granted to the Petitioner. The respondent counsel submitted that confinement of 58 per cent of the CGST and 29 per cent of the IGST has been fixed taking into consideration that at present the Central Government devolves 42 per cent of the Taxes on Goods and Services to the States, and has no relation to the erstwhile Schemes and it is impossible to compare the benefits under the old Scheme and the new Scheme, neither is it feasible or desirable. The court observed that the 100 per cent Excise duty exemption by way of refund availed by the Petitioner prior to the Tax Reform of 2017, was curtailed by the Respondents under the GST regime through the Budgetary Support Schemes reducing the benefits earlier granted. The court observed that issued raised in this matter is soundly quelled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in all aspects by the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Another vs. V.V.F. Limited and Another (2020), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had rejected the original Petition of the Petitioner wherein they sought benefit on the ground of Promissory Estoppel.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petition.
This court find no merit in the Writ Petition, which deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.
The Scheme of Budgetary Support —– The petitioner challenged the restrictions imposed by the Scheme of Budgetary Support, issued under the GST vide Notification F.No.10(1)/2017-DBAII/NER, dated 05.10.2017, by the Respondent No.1 reducing the quantum of benefits availed earlier. The Petitioner submitted that on 17.02.2003, the Respondent No.1 notified the “New Industrial Policy and other concessions for the State of Sikkim” vide which 100 per cent exemption from Excise duty was granted for a period of ten years. The Budgetary Support Scheme is applicable to the Units which were eligible for drawing benefits under the earlier Excise Duty Exemption/Refund Schemes and was applicable for the remaining period out of the total period not exceeding ten years. The amount of Budgetary Support under the Scheme for specified goods manufactured by the eligible Unit is specified as the sum total of 58 per cent of the Central Tax paid through debit in cash ledger account and 29 per cent of the Integrated Tax paid through debit in cash ledger account. The Excise Duty Exemptions availed by the Petitioner by way of refund in the pre GST regime, for both the Units were curtailed by the Respondent No.1 through the Budgetary Support Policy thereby reducing the benefit granted to the Petitioner. The respondent counsel submitted that confinement of 58 per cent of the CGST and 29 per cent of the IGST has been fixed taking into consideration that at present the Central Government devolves 42 per cent of the Taxes on Goods and Services to the States, and has no relation to the erstwhile Schemes and it is impossible to compare the benefits under the old Scheme and the new Scheme, neither is it feasible or desirable. The court observed that the 100 per cent Excise duty exemption by way of refund availed by the Petitioner prior to the Tax Reform of 2017, was curtailed by the Respondents under the GST regime through the Budgetary Support Schemes reducing the benefits earlier granted. The court observed that issued raised in this matter is soundly quelled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in all aspects by the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Another vs. V.V.F. Limited and Another (2020), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had rejected the original Petition of the Petitioner wherein they sought benefit on the ground of Promissory Estoppel.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petition.