2024 (2) TMI 657 - HC - GST

Seeking GST Concession Certificate so that they can avail of a concessional rate of GST and seek a refund for the GST paid on the purchase of a vehicle. - Declination to accept the recommendation made by the Chief Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities by his order dated 06.04.2023 - HELD THAT - The petitioner submits that the applicants were permitted refund of duty even after the vehicle was purchased and there was no mandatory requirement of obtaining an entitlement certificate before purchase, which has only been introduced in the 2019 policy. Learned counsel further submits that respondents have even permitted similar refund pertaining to applications made before the 2019 policy was notified - Be that as it may, since the application of the petitioner was submitted before the policy was amended, the same was liable to be considered under the 2018 policy and could not have been returned on 24.10.2019. Petitioner had also approached the Chief Commissioner of persons with Disabilities and the Commissioner by order dated 06.04.2023 had issued directions to the Respondent to apply the 2018 policy but by order dated 05.06.2023, the Respondents have held that the said policy is not applicable. The order dated 05.06.2023 of the Respondents is not sustainable - this petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner dated 17.08.2019 in terms of the 2018 policy.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the quashing of an order declining a recommendation for a GST Concession Certificate, application under the Notification dated 01.05.2018, return of the application due to unclear seal and missing signature, purchase of a vehicle classified as an invalid carriage, revised policy guidelines, amendment to the Schedule by the Ministry of Finance, and the applicability of the 2018 policy versus the 2019 policy.

Quashing of Order and Grant of GST Concession Certificate:
The petitioner sought the quashing of an order declining to accept the recommendation made by the Chief Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities and a direction to grant a GST Concession Certificate for availing a concessional rate of GST and seeking a refund of the GST paid on the purchase of a vehicle. The High Court found that the order of the Respondents dated 05.06.2023, holding that the 2018 policy was not applicable, was not sustainable and accordingly quashed the same. The Court directed the Respondents to consider the petitioner's application dated 17.08.2019 in terms of the 2018 policy. If the petitioner is found eligible under the 2018 policy, an appropriate concession certificate should be issued, and the excess GST collected should be refunded within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of the judgment.

Application Process and Return of Application:
The petitioner, a person with a disability, applied for a GST Concession Certificate on 01.07.2019 under the Notification dated 01.05.2018. However, the application was returned on 26.07.2019 due to an unclear seal of the certifying doctor and the missing signature of the Ortho on the supporting documents. Subsequently, the petitioner purchased a Ciaz Smart Hybrid vehicle classified as an invalid carriage on 22.07.2019. A second application was made on 17.08.2019, but it was returned on 24.10.2019, citing a revised policy that required the petitioner to apply afresh. The Court held that the application submitted before the policy amendment should have been considered under the 2018 policy, as the 2019 policy amendments were not applicable at the time of the initial application.

Policy Amendments and Applicability:
The Respondents contended that a proposal was under consideration for amending the policy, leading to the return of applications. They mentioned an amendment to the Schedule by the Ministry of Finance on 30.09.2019, which resulted in the revision of the policy and the issuance of revised guidelines on 24.10.2019. However, the Court held that since the petitioner's initial application was made under the 2018 policy, the subsequent amendments introduced in the 2019 policy should not have affected the processing of the petitioner's application. The Court emphasized that the application should have been considered under the policy that was in force at the time of submission, i.e., the 2018 policy.