TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 475
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PC"), seeking to insert amendments in the Writ Petition. The proposed amendments are as follows; Insertion of Paragraph 4.1 and 4.2 after the existing Paragraph 4: "4.1. The Petitioner is also challenging the proviso to Section 174(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 which provides that tax exemption granted as an incentive through a notification would not continue if such notification is rescinded. 4.2 Further, the Petitioner is also challenging the Notification No.21/2017-C.E. dated 18.07.2017 vide which the exemption notifications issued under the erstwhile regime (including Notification No.20/2007-C.E. dated 25.04.2007) were rescinded." Replacing the contents of the existing Parag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....corporating 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 Article 14 of the Constitution of India (e) Hold that proviso to Section 174(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Notification No.21/2017-C.E. dated 18.07.2017 and the Scheme of Budgetary support under Goods and Service Tax regime to the units located in the States of Jammu & Kashmir, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies, the persons who establish the new undertakings shall be continue to get the refund of the excise duty. However, it is clarified by the subsequent notifications that the refund of the excise duty shall be on the actual excise duty paid on actual value addition made by the manufacturers undertaking manufacturing activities. Therefore, it cannot be said that subsequent notifications/industrial policies are hit by the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The respective High Courts have committed grave error in holding that the subsequent notifications/industrial policies impugned before the respective High Courts were hit by the doctrine of promissory estoppel. As observed and held hereinabove, the subsequent notifications/ industrial policies....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r in Paragraphs 2 to 5 of the I.A. in totality it was contended that the proposed amendments change the entire nature and character of the suit besides the fact that nothing remains for adjudication in the Writ Petition in view of the above cited ratiocination of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the proposed amendments merit no consideration and the petition ought to be dismissed. 6. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length. We have also perused the Writ Petition and the amendments proposed as detailed in the I.A. 7. The prayers in the Writ Petition inter alia read as follows; "(a) Issue an appropriate Writ reading down Clause 5.1 & 5.2 of the Notification F.No.10(1)/2017-DBA-II/NER, notifying 'Scheme of Budgetary....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 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 i....