2001 (4) TMI 901 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenging notice demanding payment of excess amount under waiver scheme.
Validity of amendment proceedings to eligibility certificate restricting waiver amount.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners challenged a notice demanding payment of excess amount under a waiver scheme. The petitioners argued that unilaterally altering terms of the agreement without notice violates principles of natural justice and promissory estoppel. The respondents contended that the amendment was necessary due to exceeding prescribed limits.

2. The amendment proceedings to the eligibility certificate restricting the waiver amount were also contested. The petitioners claimed that the third respondent could not restrict the waiver amount without notice or opportunity to represent their case. The respondents argued that the amendment was based on internal audit findings and within legal limits.

3. The Tribunal found that it couldn't direct the third respondent to cancel the amendment but noted that the petitioners did not object to the amendment below a certain amount. The petitioners' request to set aside the amendment proceedings was dismissed, with a directive for the first and second respondents to give notice before implementing changes.

4. Regarding the notice demanding refund of excess amount, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the petitioners. It held that the respondents could not unilaterally alter the agreement based on the amended eligibility certificate. The principles of promissory estoppel were cited to support the decision against refunding the excess amount.

5. The Tribunal emphasized that while the eligibility certificate was amended, the original agreement between the parties remained unchanged. The respondents were instructed to follow proper procedures to amend the agreement if necessary. The petitioners were not entitled to the full original waiver amount but only up to the amount already availed.

6. The Tribunal allowed one petition and dismissed another, setting aside the notice demanding payment of the excess amount. It directed the respondents to comply with the ruling and observed that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit only up to the amount already availed under the scheme.