9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s have their respective shares in the GST taxes. Hence, it cannot be said that the respondents would be deprived of any component if the petitioners come within the purview of the GST scheme - In the present case, the petitioners were issued both RC-I and RC-II and the petitioners application under the subsidy scheme was duly sanctioned. The petitioners, in fact, have continued commercial production under the specific promise made by the State of giving the incentive/subsidy under the scheme-in question - the doctrine of promissory estoppel is squarely applicable in the present case. The sanction was granted to the petitioners under the said Scheme, thereby clearly admitting the fact and acquiescing to the position that the petitioners were entitled to the benefits of the scheme - the petitioners are squarely entitled to claim the benefits of the subsidy scheme-in-question even after coming into force of the GST Act, as per Clause 19. 2 of the Scheme. The respondent authorities have acted palpably de hors the scope of the scheme in passing the impugned order dated February 17, 2022 authored by the Managing Director, West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Limited where it ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rguments of the petitioners. 7. It is contended that the GST Act subsumed all the pre-existing indirect tax statutes, including those relating to VAT. It is sought to be argued that in such scenario, the GST Act has replaced not only the VAT Act but also the other statutes governing indirect tax. Hence, the provisions of Clause 19.2, which only contemplates a statute replacing the VAT Act alone, cannot be considered to be a replacement of the VAT Act in view of the GST taking into account other indirect taxes as well. 8. That apart, learned counsel for the petitioner cites the judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Mohit Minerals Private Limited, reported at (2022) 10 SCC 700. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court had observed inter alia that in the pre-GST regime, the Union of India had the exclusive powers to contemplate to impose indirect taxes, that is, on intra-state sale of goods, customs duty, service taxes and excise duty. The states had the exclusive power to impose tax on intrastate sale of goods, luxury tax, entertainment tax, purchase tax and taxes on gambling and betting. The GST regime, it was held, has subsumed all the indirect taxes. 9. Learned counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heme indicates that the same specifically stipulates that in the event of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 being replaced by any other Act , the provision of the Scheme will apply mutatis mutandis even after the new Act comes into force. 20. Thus, in the absence of any other Act being introduced apart from the GST Act, which has subsumed the VAT Act, the argument advanced by the respondents cannot be accepted. 21. It is not in doubt that the GST Act has subsumed all indirect tax including VAT, which entitled the petitioners to continue to be governed under the subsidy scheme-inquestion. 22. The argument as to there being distinction between the entitlement of the Centre and the States is neither here nor there. 23. Admittedly and even as per such judgment as cited by the respondents, the said component is also envisaged within the GST scheme of things. Both the Centre and States have their respective shares in the GST taxes. Hence, it cannot be said that the respondents would be deprived of any component if the petitioners come within the purview of the GST scheme. 24. Insofar as the argument on promissory estoppel not being applicable to the present case, such argument is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C-II. 34. Insofar as the further challenge to the entitlement of the petitioners sought to be raised by learned counsel for the respondents regarding the product not being new within the contemplation of Clause 3.1.6.3 of the scheme, the same has been made only from the bar as an afterthought and at the time of final hearing of the writ petition and was never urged by the respondents at any point of time. 35. Rather, the sanction was granted to the petitioners under the said Scheme, thereby clearly admitting the fact and acquiescing to the position that the petitioners were entitled to the benefits of the scheme. 36. In fact, if there was any demur on such count, the respondents ought to have taken the steps as contemplated under the scheme much earlier. 37. Having not done so, the respondents are precluded from taking such a plea at this belated juncture. 38. In such view of the matter, the petitioners are squarely entitled to claim the benefits of the subsidy scheme-in-question even after coming into force of the GST Act, as per Clause 19. 2 of the Scheme. 39. Such position has also been strengthened by the respondents themselves by disbursing a substantial portion of the dues of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
