TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 783
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he petitioner to be granted the benefits of the scheme. 2. Subsequently, however, after having disbursed a portion of the dues of the said petitioner under the scheme as lately as on September 1, 2017, the respondent authorities have refused to disburse the rest of the amount of the scheme on the plea that in the altered GST regime, the scheme cannot be continued, since the scheme did not contemplate of such tax. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on Clause 19.2 of the scheme in particular which provides that in the event of the West Bengal Value Added Tax, 2003 being replaced by any other Act, the provision of the scheme will apply mutatis mutandis even after the new Act comes into force. 4. That apart, it is argued ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....That apart, learned counsel for the petitioner cites the judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Mohit Minerals Private Limited, reported at (2022) 10 SCC 700. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court had observed inter alia that in the pre-GST regime, the Union of India had the exclusive powers to contemplate to impose indirect taxes, that is, on intra-state sale of goods, customs duty, service taxes and excise duty. The states had the exclusive power to impose tax on intrastate sale of goods, luxury tax, entertainment tax, purchase tax and taxes on gambling and betting. The GST regime, it was held, has subsumed all the indirect taxes. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents next argues that the incentive scheme is in the nature of conce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Refined Palmolein Oil (other than Hydrogenated). However, in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, the petitioners have admitted that they used to produce the same product previously. As such, it cannot be said that the item is new. 16. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to come within the framework of the Scheme at all. 17. A perusal of the judgement cited by the respondents indicates that the Supreme Court merely elaborated that the GST Act has subsumed primarily the indirect taxation regime previously existing, both vis-à-vis the Centre and the States. 18. However, it is not the case of either party that there has been any other statute, which has subsumed the VAT Act specifically. The GST regime has subsumed all indirect tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, a substantial portion of the amount due under the scheme to the tune of Rs. 15.05 crore was paid to the petitioner on September 1, 2017, thereby further bolstering the entitlement of the petitioners' claim under the Scheme. Even after the promulgation of the GST regime such disbursal was made. Hence, the petitioners were not only granted sanction under the scheme but were also issued RC-I and RC-II without any demur by the respondents at any point of time and a substantial portion of the same was paid to the petitioners. 27. The petitioners, in fact, have continued commercial production under the specific promise made by the State of giving the incentive/subsidy under the scheme-inquestion. 28. Hence, the doctrine of promissory estoppe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge to the entitlement of the petitioners sought to be raised by learned counsel for the respondents regarding the product not being 'new' within the contemplation of Clause 3.1.6.3 of the scheme, the same has been made only from the bar as an afterthought and at the time of final hearing of the writ petition and was never urged by the respondents at any point of time. 35. Rather, the sanction was granted to the petitioners under the said Scheme, thereby clearly admitting the fact and acquiescing to the position that the petitioners were entitled to the benefits of the scheme. 36. In fact, if there was any demur on such count, the respondents ought to have taken the steps as contemplated under the scheme much earlier. 37. Having not done ....