Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2020 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 475 - HC - GSTRefund of the CGST and 50% of the IGST paid - reducing benefit of exemption / incentive scheme from central excise era - Scope of the amendments - Alteration / Amendment in the writ petition - vires of Section 174(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Notification No.21/2017-C.E., dated 1807-2017 - direction to Respondents to fix a special rate of refund eligible to the Petitioner to entitle them to refund equivalent to that available under the erstwhile regime which should also be granted under the budgetary support scheme - HELD THAT:- In the matter at hand, the Writ Petition was finally heard on 03-09-2019 and Judgment reserved. In the interim, the Petitioner filed an application being I.A. No.02 of 2019, wherein it was averred that the Hon’ble Supreme Court took up the entire batch of appeals filed by the Respondent against the Judgments passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, Jammu and Kashmir, Guwahati and Sikkim on the issue of curtailment of central excise duty exemption, on 04-09-2019 in the Miscellaneous List. The appeal filed by the Respondent against the Judgment of this High Court dated 21-11-2017 was heard on 05-09-2019 and Judgment reserved. Subsequent thereto, the amendment application being I.A. No.03 of 2020 was filed on 06-06-2020, seeking to incorporate amendments. - By the proposed amendments the Petitioner seeks to challenge the vires of Section 174(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Notification No.21/2017-C.E., dated 1807-2017, on the ground that it takes away the vested rights of the Petitioner by reducing the exemption/benefits to the Petitioner. The prayers in the Writ Petition are confined to enabling the Petitioner to claim full refund of the CGST and 50% of the IGST paid through the electronic cash ledger. It cannot be said that the Petitioner was unaware of the provision of the statute the vires of which they now seek to assail, nor was it inserted at some point later in time to the filing of the Writ Petition. The question of the Petitioner’s inability to raise the matter in spite of due diligence, before the matter was heard or was taken up for hearing, therefore, does not arise. In view of the questions involved in the instant Writ Petition it cannot be said that the amendments are necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties considering the prayers of the Petitioner referred above. The proposed amendments if permitted would in fact change the very nature and character of the Writ Petition and introduce an entirely different Cause of action, which is not permissible. The Petition stands rejected and dismissed.
|