9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulars dated 27-11-2017, of the Central Board of Excise & Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India and 10-01-2019 of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. The petitioner's claim for budgetary support for the period July, 2017 to September, 2017, was rejected by respondent No. 3 while allowing its claims for October, 2017 to June, 2018, reasoning that in terms of the computation prescribed in Circular, dated 27-11-2017, the appellant's claim for budgetary support, after aggregating the tax liabilities and input tax credit and considering that the balance of input tax credit was in the negative, the appellant was not entitled to any budgetary support for the said period. 3. The learned single Judge, by the order dated 06-05-2024, in WP(C) No. 02 of 2023, observed inter alia that, the petitioner admittedly did not follow the budgetary scheme or the instructions of the two Circulars, dated 27-11-2017 and 10-01-2019, to file claim application on a quarterly basis, instead of which, the petitioner filed separate claims for the months of July and August, 2017, under one covering lette ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 27-11-2017 is to be interpreted in accordance with the provisions outlined in the Notification dated 05-10-2017, specifically as mentioned in Explanation II(b) of paragraph 5.1 and in the Circular dated 10-01-2019. Reliance placed by the respondent No. 3 on the Circular, leading to disallowance of the claim of the petitioner is misplaced and legally erroneous and denying the budgetary support claim based solely on the formula of the Circulars for refund filing, is unjustified as rights vested by a statutory Notification cannot be amended by a Circular. That, even if the interpretation adopted in the impugned order is sustained, the situation would be revenue neutral. It was urged that the balance of input tax credit at the end of September, 2017, was carried forward to October, 2017, November, 2017 to December, 2017, thereby being utilized for payment of taxes in the said months, which in turn reduced the claim for budgetary support for the months of October, November and December, 2017. If the workings for both the quarters are combined (July, 2017 to December, 2017), the petitioner in totality still gets the same amount as it has claimed for both quarters. That, even if computat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y support on a quarterly basis only. This clarification was issued by a decision of the Deputy Commissionerate as per learned Deputy Solicitor General of India subsequent to the order in Coromandel International Ltd. (supra) case. The scheme also does not provide for interest to the assessee as it is a grant in the form of financial support, to the eligible units. Learned single Judge has correctly observed that when a certain procedure was prescribed, it was for the petitioner to have complied with it and not worked out a different procedure. Hence, the concurrent findings of the respondent No. 3 and the learned single Judge ought not to be disturbed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. We have also perused the documents placed before us. We find that the 'clarification' issued by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, Finance Department, bearing No. FD-ST/29/2022-03, dated 26-04-2022, pertains to clarification with respect to determination of amount of reimbursement under (i) SRO 519 dated 21-12-2017 (ii) SRO 521 dated 21-12-2017 and (iii) SRO 63 dated 05-02-2018. All the said SROs pertain to the provision for budgetary support to the existing eligible manu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsement by way of budgetary support for the period, January 2020 to March 2020 and April 2020 to June 2020 before the Central Tax Authorities. The petitioner contended that, the adjudicating authority illegally and arbitrarily rejected the reimbursement under budgetary support, on the ground, that the petitioner had closing balance of input tax credit lying unutilized at the end of quarter and had reduced the budgetary support arbitrarily to the extent of the closing balance of input tax credit that remained unutilized at the end of the quarter. The petitioner dissatisfied with the order of rejection was before the High Court. The High Court took into consideration the departmental clarification dated 26-04-2022 (supra) and inter alia ordered as follows; "6. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that, issuance of clarification by the Finance Department, UT of Jammu and Kashmir, has necessitated revisiting of claim of the petitioner by the Adjudicating Authority. 7. In view of the above, these petitions are disposed of by providing as under: The impugned order passed by respondent No. 3 is quashed and the mattes rem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Circular (supra) also envisages month-wise details it stands to reason that claims could be raised accordingly. 9. We are not in agreement with the submissions of Deputy Solicitor of India for the respondents No. 1 and 2, who was of the view that even though there was compliance of the order of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh directing the adjudicating authority to take steps in terms of the clarification dated 26-04-2022, yet clarification issued subsequently by the DPIIT, Nodal Central Agency, dated 21-09-2023, is to be given more weightage over and above the order of the High Court, which proposition by itself is preposterous and untenable. 10. It is relevant also to notice that the doctrine of judicial comity or amity, requires the Court not to pass an order which would be in conflict with another order passed by a competent court of law. In India Household and Healthcare Ltd. vs. LG Household and Healthcare Ltd. (2007) 5 SCC 510 the Supreme Court observed that; "19. A court while exercising its judicial function would ordinarily not pass an order which would make one of the parties to the lis violate a lawful order passed by another court." The above judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
