TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 558
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....units operating in the National Capital Territory of Delhi, has filed this petition impugning the decision dated 18th June, 2017 of the Goods and Services Tax Council (GST Council), in exercise of powers under Section 10(2)(e) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, of exclusion of ice cream from the benefits of Composition Scheme under Section 10 of the Act. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said exclusion is in violation of the spirit of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice. 2. The petition was entertained and notice thereof issued. 3. The counsel for the respondent no.2 GST Council states that she has filed a counter affidavit yesterday only. The same has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....000/- to such higher amount not exceeding Rs. 1,50,00,000/-, as may be recommended by the GST Council. Section 10(2)(e) of the Act however empowers the Government to, on the recommendation of the GST Council, notify goods manufacturers whereof though eligible for availing the benefit of Section 10(1), would cease to be eligible to such benefit. 6. The counsel for the petitioner informs that the limit aforesaid of Rs. 50,00,000/- was successively increased to Rs. 75,00,000/- and Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. It is further informed that the respondent no.2 GST Council, in its Seventeenth Meeting held on 18th June, 2017, in exercise of powers under Section 10(2)(e) of the Act, has recommended notification of ice cream and in pursuance to the said reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....excluding ice cream from benefit of Section 10(1) of the Act, the counsel for the petitioner contends that the reason which prevailed for excluding ice cream was that there is no Goods and Services Tax (GST) on milk, being a large constituent of ice cream and if small manufacturers of ice cream were to be given benefit of Section 10(1) of the Act, there would be large scale loss of revenue. 11. It is the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that ice cream comprises of a large number of other components which are assessable to GST and thus the reasoning emanating from the minutes of the impugned meeting of the respondent no.2 GST Council for excluding ice cream from the benefit of Section 10(1) of the Act, is fallacious. 12. A re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that Government decisions concerning public resources have an intricate economic value attached with them and to elevate the standard of review on the basis of subjective understanding of the subject matter being extraordinary, would be de hors the review jurisdiction. It was further reiterated that the courts, in the exercise of their jurisdiction, will not transgress into the field of policy decision, as long as no law is violated and people's fundamental right are not transgressed upon and that the court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the Government merely because it feels that another decision would have been fairer or more scientific or logical or wiser; the wisdom and advisability of the policies are ordinarily not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und of CST paid. To the same effect is Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Delhi Administration (2001) 3 SCC 635. 16. The counsel for the respondents also in this context has referred to Rai Ram Krishna Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1963 SC 1667, Union of India Vs. Parmeswaran Match Works (1975) 1 SCC 305, Express Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat (1989) 3 SCC 677 and Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. Vs. Sir Shadilal Enterprises Ltd. (2011) 1 SCC 640. 17. The counsel for the respondent has also drawn our attention to the minutes of the Sixteenth GST Council Meeting annexed with her counter affidavit, which has been e-mailed to us and has been perused by us. 18. However a perusal of the said minutes also shows the same reason as emanating from the Seventeen....