2026 (4) TMI 1059

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2024, bearing no. F 19-07/2020/11/6, passed by Respondent No. 1 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to reimburse the tax benefits to petitioner as per the policy, 2012. 10.4 Any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favor of petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 10.5 Cost of the petition. 2) Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner established an industry according to Agriculture and Food Processing Industrial Policy, 2012 floated by the State Government which assured subsidy relaxation and refund of Value Added Tax (VAT) and Central Sal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e petitioner-industry on the ground that following the change in law, the circumstance which necessitated extension of subsidy has now disappeared. She further submits that present petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5) Section 174 (2) (c) of the CGST and the proviso appended to it read as under :- 174. Repeal and Saving - (1) * * * * (2) The repeal of the said Acts and the amendment of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereafter referred to as " such amendment " or " amended Act", as the case may be) to the extent mentioned in the sub-section (1) or section 173 shall not- (a) * * * * (b) * * *....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... exemption notifications have been rescinded. It is thus clear that the benefit which was granted under the 2003 Notification stands rescinded in view of the notification issued under the proviso to clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 174 of the CGST Act. 41. The question, therefore, that would fall for consideration is, as to whether, despite a subsequent statute specifically providing for rescinding the benefits granted under an earlier statute, the Union Government can be compelled to stand by the representation made by it through the earlier notification. In other words, the question that will have to be considered is whether doctrine of promissory estoppel could operate against a statute. 7) Taking into consideration t....