9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 511 - HC - GSTRejection of the petitioner s claim for budgetary support - Violation of principles of natural justice - opportunity of personal hearing not provided to the petitioner - whether the budgetary support claimed by the petitioner for the month of July 2017 and August 2017 separately in their initial applications ought to have been favourably considered by the Assistant Commissioner Central Goods Service Tax (respondent no. 3) although as per the respondent no. 3 the Budgetary Support Scheme envisaged working it out on a quarterly basis on claims to be filed on quarterly basis? HELD THAT - The Budgetary Support Scheme clearly mandated that it should be worked out on quarterly basis for which claims shall be filed on a quarterly basis. Although the Circular dated 27.11.2017 permitted manual application for budgetary support for the quarter ending September 2017 it did not digress from the mandate of paragraph 5.4 of the Budgetary Support Scheme requiring the filing of the claim on quarterly basis and working the same out also on quarterly basis. The Circular dated 10.01.2019 permitted the assessee to provide month wise details in the table annexed to the refund application to enable speedier and accurate verification of the refunds claims - The petitioner however admittedly did not follow the budgetary scheme or the instructions of the two Circulars dated 27.11.2017 and 10.01.2019 and file the claim application on a quarterly basis. Instead the petitioner filed separate claims for the month of July 2017 and August 2017 under one covering letter. By this process the petitioner claimed budgetary support of Rs. 16, 88, 693/- for July 2017 and Rs. 1, 54, 00, 360/- for August 2017. No claim for budgetary support was made for September 2017. The budgetary support under the Budgetary Support Scheme is in the nature of grant and not refund of duty under taxation law. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to satisfy the requirements of the Budgetary Support Scheme and follow the procedure prescribed. When a procedure is prescribed the petitioner while seeking the grant of budgetary support is required to follow that procedure and not work out a different procedure for the authorities to follow. The fact that budgetary support was given to the petitioner for the other three quarters it is evident that there was no malice on the part of the authorities while rejecting the claim for budgetary support for the quarter July 2017 to September 2017. It is to be noted that the petitioner makes no grievance about the applications filed by them for the other quarters for which budgetary support as sought for were granted. The Budgetary Support Scheme had envisaged the grant of budgetary support to be worked out quarterly on a claim made for the quarter and not for separate months. Therefore when the petitioner was required by the authorities to modify their initial applications to a quarterly basis as required under the law they had no choice but to reflect the balance of ITC of CGST for the month of September 2017 as well. This led the petitioner to calculate their own budgetary support in the negative correctly as done in the application mentioned by the petitioner in the writ petition but filed by the respondent in the counter affidavit. This Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as sought for in the present writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of petitioner's claim for budgetary support for July-September 2017. 2. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice. 3. Interpretation of the Budgetary Support Scheme and relevant circulars. 4. Entitlement to interest on delayed budgetary support. Summary of Judgment: 1. Rejection of Petitioner's Claim for Budgetary Support for July-September 2017: The petitioner's claim for budgetary support for July-September 2017 was rejected, leading to the present litigation. The petitioner argued that their initial claims for July and August 2017 should have been considered separately, but the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax (respondent no. 3) maintained that the Budgetary Support Scheme required claims to be filed on a quarterly basis. 2. Alleged Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The petitioner contended that there was a violation of principles of natural justice as no personal hearing was granted. However, the Court found no violation because the petitioner was allowed to resubmit applications for budgetary support, and three out of four claims were accepted. The Court noted that the petitioner had no grievance regarding the accepted claims, indicating no violation of natural justice. 3. Interpretation of the Budgetary Support Scheme and Relevant Circulars: The petitioner argued that the rejection was due to an erroneous interpretation of the Budgetary Support Scheme and Circulars dated 27.11.2017 and 10.01.2019. The petitioner claimed budgetary support for July and August 2017 separately, citing the Circular dated 10.01.2019. The respondents countered that the Budgetary Support Scheme required claims to be filed and worked out on a quarterly basis. The Court examined the Budgetary Support Scheme and the relevant circulars, concluding that the Scheme mandated quarterly claims, and the Circular dated 10.01.2019 did not permit monthly claims. The petitioner's separate claims for July and August 2017 were not in line with the Scheme's requirements. 4. Entitlement to Interest on Delayed Budgetary Support: The petitioner claimed entitlement to interest due to the delay in sanctioning the budgetary support. The respondents argued that the Budgetary Support Scheme did not envisage any interest on such claims as the support was a grant, not a refund under taxation law. The Court agreed with the respondents, stating that the Scheme did not provide for interest on delayed budgetary support. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner did not follow the prescribed procedure under the Budgetary Support Scheme and the relevant circulars. The petitioner's claim for budgetary support for July-September 2017 was correctly calculated in the negative due to the balance of ITC of CGST for September 2017. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's claims and upheld the respondents' decision. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs.
|
