TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effect taking away the vested rights of the Petitioner by reducing the exemptions/benefits promised to the Petitioner. Thus, the impugned proviso to Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act and the impugned Notification No.21/2017-C.E. dated 18.07.2017 are contrary to the established principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation as submitted in foregoing Grounds. For this reason, the impugned proviso to Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act and the impugned Notification No.21/2017-C.E. dated 18.07.2017 are liable to be struck down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the vested rights of the Petitioner. It may be noted that this submission is without prejudice to Petitioner s contention that the exemptions promised to the Petitioner is a vested right. Incorporating the following clauses in place of existing clauses (c) to (e): (c) strike down the proviso to Section 174(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as unconstitutional being contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (d) strike down the Notification No.21/2017C.E. dated 18.07.2017 issued by the Respondent No.1 as unconstitutional being contrary to Ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olicies impugned before the respective High Courts were hit by the doctrine of promissory estoppel. As observed and held hereinabove, the subsequent notifications/ industrial policies which were impugned before the respective High Court can be said to be clarificatory in nature and the same have been issued in the larger public interest and in the interest of the Revenue, the same can be made applicable retrospectively, otherwise the object and purpose and the intention of the Government to provide excise duty exemption only in respect of genuine manufacturing activities carried out in the concerned areas shall be frustrated. 5. That, the Hon ble Supreme Court has thereby rejected the original Petition of the Petitioner wherein they had sought benefits on the ground of promissory estoppel and hence this Petition deserves no consideration. It was further contended that the I.A. has been brought at a belated stage when the original Writ Petition has been heard in its entirety and the Judgment in the matter was reserved, indicating the mala fides of the Petitioner. It was next pointed out that with the Goods and Services Tax being rolled out a new Scheme has been offered as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund of the Central Goods and Services Tax and 50% of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax paid through the electronic cash ledger. An alternative prayer ensues directing the 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. 9. Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC clothes the Court with powers to allow either party to alter or amend their pleadings at any stage of the proceedings on such terms as may be just. It also requires that all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided that no application for amendment should be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Thus, the provisions in the first part is discretionary and in the second part is imperative inasmuch as amendments that are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties oug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
