Petition challenging GST budgetary support scheme restrictions dismissed after Supreme Court precedent in V.V.F. Limited case

The HC dismissed the petition challenging the validity of restrictions imposed by the Scheme of Budgetary Support under GST regime, which reduced benefits previously available under Central Excise exemption. The petitioner claimed 100% excise duty exemption was curtailed to 58% CGST and 29% IGST budgetary support after GST implementation, arguing promissory estoppel. The court held that similar grievances in multiple petitions were adequately addressed by the SC in V.V.F. Limited case, finding no grounds for independent examination of the matter.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Restrictions imposed by the Scheme of Budgetary Support under the GST regime.
2. Reduction in the quantum of benefits previously availed by the Petitioner.
3. Alleged violation of Promissory Estoppel.
4. Applicability of the Supreme Court's judgment in V.V.F. Limited.
5. Public interest and rationale behind the new Budgetary Support Scheme.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Restrictions Imposed by the Scheme of Budgetary Support under the GST Regime:
The Petitioner challenged the restrictions imposed by the Scheme of Budgetary Support issued under the GST regime, which reduced the benefits previously availed. The Petitioner, a Private Limited Company engaged in manufacturing P&P Medicaments and Consumer Health Products, argued that the new scheme reneged on promises made under the erstwhile tax regime, adversely affecting them.

2. Reduction in the Quantum of Benefits Previously Availed by the Petitioner:
The Petitioner contended that the new scheme curtailed the 100 percent excise duty exemption they enjoyed under the previous regime. Under the GST regime, the Budgetary Support Scheme provided only 58 percent of the Central Tax and 29 percent of the Integrated Tax paid through debit in cash ledger, after full utilization of input tax credit. This reduction was argued to be contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution and the Petitioner’s right to avail the full benefit of the exemption.

3. Alleged Violation of Promissory Estoppel:
The Petitioner argued that the principle of Promissory Estoppel applied, as they had made substantial investments based on the promises of 100 percent excise duty exemption. They claimed that the Respondents failed to demonstrate any supervening public interest necessitating the curtailment of benefits. The Petitioner relied on previous judgments, including SL Srinavasa Jute Twine Mills (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India and Southern Petrochemicals Industries Co. Ltd. vs. Electricity Inspector and Etio and Ors., to support their contention.

4. Applicability of the Supreme Court's Judgment in V.V.F. Limited:
The Respondents argued that the Supreme Court's judgment in V.V.F. Limited, which set aside similar judgments by various High Courts, applied to the present case. The Supreme Court had held that the subsequent notifications were clarificatory in nature, did not take away any vested rights, and were issued in the larger public interest to prevent misuse and achieve the original object and purpose of the incentive/exemption.

5. Public Interest and Rationale Behind the New Budgetary Support Scheme:
The Respondents justified the new scheme by stating that it was launched as a measure of goodwill and was unrelated to the erstwhile schemes. They argued that the new scheme was expedient in public interest and for revenue. The Respondents also highlighted that the Petitioner had availed benefits under the new scheme for various periods and then filed the writ petition, which was arbitrary and bad in law.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the Petitioner’s arguments. The Court held that the issues raised were identical to those previously determined in the judgment dated 21.11.2017, which had been set aside by the Supreme Court in V.V.F. Limited. The Supreme Court had clarified that the subsequent notifications were issued in public interest and did not violate the principle of Promissory Estoppel. Therefore, the High Court found no reason to delve further into the question of Promissory Estoppel and upheld the new Budgetary Support Scheme under the GST regime.

---