Court orders reimbursement for delayed UID issuance in pharmaceutical case, citing unjustified rejection.

The court held that the rejection of the petitioner's budgetary support claims was unjustified due to the delay in UID issuance caused by the respondents' inaction. The petitioner, engaged in pharmaceutical products, had validly applied for the UID, but it was delayed due to the respondents' failure to process the initial manual application. The court ordered the respondents to process the claims and sanction reimbursements within three months, emphasizing that the rejection was solely on technical grounds without considering the eligibility for budgetary support. Each party was directed to bear their respective costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of budgetary support claims for the period prior to UID registration.
2. Compliance with the "Scheme of Budgetary Support under Goods and Service Tax" notification dated 05.10.2017.
3. Timeliness and procedural adherence in filing claims.
4. Responsibility and fault in the delay of UID issuance.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Budgetary Support Claims for the Period Prior to UID Registration:
The core dispute revolves around the rejection of the petitioner’s claims for budgetary support under the "Scheme of Budgetary Support under Goods and Service Tax" regime. The rejection was based on the fact that the claims were made for periods before the issuance of the Unique ID (UID), which is a mandatory pre-registration requirement as per the notification dated 05.10.2017.

2. Compliance with the "Scheme of Budgetary Support under Goods and Service Tax" Notification Dated 05.10.2017:
The petitioner, engaged in the manufacture and supply of pharmaceutical products, challenged four orders dated 05.12.2019 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Gangtok Division. The orders rejected the claims for budgetary support for the period from July 2017 to June 2018. The petitioner was assigned a UID number upon validation of eligibility under the scheme. However, the claims were rejected because they were made for periods before the UID was issued, violating the mandatory pre-registration requirement.

3. Timeliness and Procedural Adherence in Filing Claims:
The respondents argued that the claims for budgetary support for the period July 2017 to June 2018 were filed belatedly, violating the notification dated 05.10.2017. The petitioner filed an application for budgetary support on 02.11.2018, but the UID was issued only on 31.10.2018. The respondents clarified that despite obtaining the UID on 31.10.2018, the claims were made for periods prior to this date, thus making them ineligible.

4. Responsibility and Fault in the Delay of UID Issuance:
The petitioner contended that the failure to register and issue the UID was due to the respondents' inaction. The petitioner had made a manual application for registration on 12.12.2017, which was not processed by the respondents. Consequently, the petitioner had to reapply electronically, resulting in the issuance of the UID on 31.10.2018. The court found that the respondents' failure to process the initial manual application caused the delay, and it was not the petitioner’s fault.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the rejection of the petitioner’s claims was unjustified as the delay in issuing the UID was due to the respondents' inaction. The petitioner was eligible for budgetary support, and the claims were rejected solely on technical grounds without examining the admissible amount of budgetary support. The court ordered the respondents to process the four claims made by the petitioner and sanction reimbursements within three months from the date of the judgment. The writ petition was allowed to this extent, with each party bearing their respective costs.

---