9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 726 - HC - Central ExciseDoctrine of promissory estoppels - Area Based exemption notification - application for request for fixation of a special rate for the value addition on the manufactured goods for the financial year 2011-2012 in terms of the notifications No.32-99-CE dated 18.07.1999, as amended and No. 31/2008-CE dated 10.06.2008 - HELD THAT - In the instant case, it is the case of the petitioner that the requirement of requesting for fixation of a special rate in respect of the value addition to the manufactured goods had arisen only after the final judgment of the Supreme Court on 20.04.2020 2020 (4) TMI 669 - SUPREME COURT , inasmuch, as long as the matter was pending before the Supreme Court and the interim order dated 07.12.2015 2015 (12) TMI 1605 - SC ORDER was in operation requiring a refund of 50% of the amount involved, no occasion had arisen for the assessee to claim for the fixation of a special rate in respect of the value addition to the manufactured goods. The dominant purpose of the two notifications i.e. amended notification No.32/99-CE dated 18.07.1999 and the notification No. 31/2008-CE dated 10.06.2008, is the bestowing of a legal right to the assessee to opt for the fixation of a special rate in respect of the value addition to a manufactured goods. The requirement that such applications are to be made not later than 30th day of September of the given financial year is a provision for streamlining the procedure for making such application and to avoid the situation where the process of making such applications would be a never ending matter. Where the necessity for making of a request for fixation of the special rate for the value addition to the manufactured goods may not have occasioned earlier, it is deeemed appropriate that the Principal Commissioner of GST, Guwahati decides the application of the petitioner on its own merit as regards the claim for fixation of a special rate to the value addition to the manufactured goods of the given financial year. The Principal Commissioner, GST, Guwahati is directed to consider the application of the petitioner dated 18.05.2020 seeking for fixation of a special rate to the value addition to the manufactured goods of the given financial year and decide the same as per law - Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notifications modifying excise duty exemptions under the Northeastern Industrial Policy. 2. Application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. 3. Requirement for refunding 50% of the amount paid to assessees. 4. Legal right to request for fixation of a special rate for value addition to manufactured goods. 5. Timeliness of applications for special rate fixation. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Notifications Modifying Excise Duty Exemptions: The petitioner, a public limited company engaged in manufacturing excisable products, challenged the validity of notifications No.17/2008-CE and No.31/2008-CE, which modified the excise duty exemptions under the Northeastern Industrial Policy. The initial judgment quashed these notifications, but the Supreme Court later upheld the modifications, thereby nullifying the excise duty exemptions previously available. 2. Application of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel: The petitioner argued against the notifications based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel, claiming that the modifications breached the promises made under the Northeastern Industrial Policy. However, the Supreme Court's final judgment did not support this argument, leading to the dismissal of the writ petitions challenging the notifications. 3. Requirement for Refunding 50% of the Amount Paid: Following an interim order by the Supreme Court, the GST Department was required to release 50% of the amount due to the assessee. This was affirmed by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, which extended the benefit to similarly situated assesses. However, after the Supreme Court's final decision, the assessees were required to refund the 50% amount paid to them. 4. Legal Right to Request for Fixation of a Special Rate: The petitioner relied on notifications No.32/99-CE and No.31/2008-CE, which allowed manufacturers to request the fixation of a special rate representing the actual value addition to manufactured goods. The court recognized that the petitioner had a legal right to request such a special rate, emphasizing that this right was not negated by the pending appeals or the interim orders. 5. Timeliness of Applications for Special Rate Fixation: The petitioner submitted an application for special rate fixation on 18.05.2020, after the Supreme Court's final judgment. The court noted that the requirement to submit such applications by 30th September of the given financial year was intended to streamline the process, but in this case, the necessity for such a request arose only after the final judgment. The court directed the Principal Commissioner of GST, Guwahati, to consider the application on its merits, despite it being submitted after the stipulated deadline, highlighting that the procedural requirement should not bar the petitioner from exercising their legal right. Conclusion: The court allowed the writ petition, directing the Principal Commissioner of GST, Guwahati, to consider the petitioner's application for special rate fixation on its merits, thereby ensuring that the petitioner’s legal rights were upheld despite procedural delays. The judgment underscores the importance of balancing procedural requirements with substantive legal rights in the context of tax exemptions and modifications.
|
