2025 (8) TMI 886

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,977/- (Rupees fifty nine lakhs, forty four thousand, nine hundred and seventy seven) only, however, on verification it is found that the eligible budgetary support payable is in the negative and hence, the taxpayer is not eligible for the budgetary support claim amount. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the Judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court in WA No.02 of 2024 (Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited vs. Union of India and Others). It was contended that the Division Bench had discussed and disposed of the same issue in the matter and had directed the Respondent to consider the claims of the Petitioner from July, 2017 to September, 2017 on the same terms as was considered by the concerned....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9 dated 21-12-2017 and SRO 521 dated 21-12-2017 was assailed. The petitioner sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the budgetary support to it, by calculating the same on the quantum of cash tax paid through cash ledger account, on monthly basis, instead of adopting the calculations on quarterly basis. The petitioner had applied for reimbursement by way of budgetary support for the period, January 2020 to March 2020 and April 2020 to June 2020 before the Central Tax Authorities. The petitioner contended that, the adjudicating authority illegally and arbitrarily rejected the reimbursement under budgetary support, on the ground, that the petitioner had closing balance of input tax credit lying unutilized at the end ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uly to September & October to December." (ii) Reverting to the clarification dated 26-04-2022, indeed we are fully aware and conscious of the fact that it was in relation to budgetary support scheme for the then State of Jammu and Kashmir under the Jammu and Kashmir Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Nonetheless, the matter pertained to a similar issue as in the instant petition, concerning budgetary support and claims to be filed. The rationale for the clarification was that the industrial units were paying taxes on monthly basis, by filing monthly GSTR-3B returns; consequently the reimbursement amount should be calculated on monthly basis although reimbursement would be on a quarterly basis. The petitioner herein also canvassed that the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3, is to be given more weightage over and above the order of the High Court, which proposition by itself is preposterous and untenable. 10. It is relevant also to notice that the doctrine of judicial comity or amity, requires the Court not to pass an order which would be in conflict with another order passed by a competent court of law. In India Household and Healthcare Ltd. vs. LG Household and Healthcare Ltd. [(2007) 5 SCC 510] the Supreme Court observed that; "19. A court while exercising its judicial function would ordinarily not pass an order which would make one of the parties to the lis violate a lawful order passed by another court." The above judgment was taken note of and considered by one of us (Biswanath Somadder) in Niren....