Budgetary support claims must follow binding prior directions, with later administrative communications unable to override reconsideration instructions.

Rejection of budgetary support on the ground that the eligible amount was negative was set aside, because an earlier Division Bench had already directed reconsideration of claims under the same scheme in light of the relevant clarification and circular. The Court treated monthly GST return filing as significant even where reimbursement was processed quarterly, and applied judicial comity to prevent a later administrative communication from displacing the binding earlier judicial direction. The petitioner's claim was therefore to be reconsidered on the same terms as in the prior Division Bench ruling.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order rejecting the petitioner's claim for budgetary support could be set aside and the claim directed to be reconsidered in light of the earlier Division Bench ruling and the allied clarification and circular.

Analysis: The challenge concerned rejection of budgetary support on the footing that the eligible amount was negative. The controlling consideration was that an earlier Division Bench had already examined the same budgetary support scheme and directed reconsideration of claims on the basis of the relevant clarification, while also noticing that GST returns are filed monthly even if the reimbursement claim is processed quarterly. The Court also applied the principle of judicial comity and declined to permit a later administrative communication to prevail over the earlier binding judicial direction on the same issue.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the petitioner's claim was to be considered on the same terms as directed in the earlier Division Bench decision.

---