Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2024 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 511 - SIKKIM HIGH COURTRejection of the petitioner’s claim for budgetary support - Violation of principles of natural justice - opportunity of personal hearing not provided to the petitioner - whether the budgetary support claimed by the petitioner for the month of July 2017 and August 2017 separately in their initial applications ought to have been favourably considered by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax (respondent no. 3) although as per the respondent no. 3 the Budgetary Support Scheme envisaged working it out on a quarterly basis on claims to be filed on quarterly basis? HELD THAT:- The Budgetary Support Scheme clearly mandated that it should be worked out on quarterly basis for which claims shall be filed on a quarterly basis. Although the Circular dated 27.11.2017 permitted manual application for budgetary support for the quarter ending September, 2017 it did not digress from the mandate of paragraph 5.4 of the Budgetary Support Scheme requiring the filing of the claim on quarterly basis and working the same out also on quarterly basis. The Circular dated 10.01.2019 permitted the assessee to provide month wise details in the table annexed to the refund application to enable speedier and accurate verification of the refunds claims - The petitioner however, admittedly did not follow the budgetary scheme or the instructions of the two Circulars dated 27.11.2017 and 10.01.2019 and file the claim application on a quarterly basis. Instead the petitioner filed separate claims for the month of July 2017 and August 2017 under one covering letter. By this process the petitioner claimed budgetary support of Rs. 16,88,693/- for July 2017 and Rs. 1,54,00,360/- for August, 2017. No claim for budgetary support was made for September 2017. The budgetary support under the Budgetary Support Scheme is in the nature of grant and not refund of duty under taxation law. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to satisfy the requirements of the Budgetary Support Scheme and follow the procedure prescribed. When a procedure is prescribed, the petitioner while seeking the grant of budgetary support, is required to follow that procedure and not work out a different procedure for the authorities to follow. The fact that budgetary support was given to the petitioner for the other three quarters, it is evident that there was no malice on the part of the authorities while rejecting the claim for budgetary support for the quarter July 2017 to September 2017. It is to be noted that the petitioner makes no grievance about the applications filed by them for the other quarters for which budgetary support as sought for were granted. The Budgetary Support Scheme had envisaged the grant of budgetary support to be worked out quarterly on a claim made for the quarter and not for separate months. Therefore, when the petitioner was required by the authorities to modify their initial applications to a quarterly basis as required under the law they had no choice but to reflect the balance of ITC of CGST for the month of September 2017 as well. This led the petitioner to calculate their own budgetary support in the negative correctly as done in the application mentioned by the petitioner in the writ petition but filed by the respondent in the counter affidavit. This Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as sought for in the present writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.
|