Page 15 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

2020 ] INDEX - 2nd April, 2020 xiii
Authority on the basis of some earlier order - Thus, without going into
question of law at this stage, matter remanded to Tribunal to redecide
issue after proper discussion on facts and after giving hearing
opportunity to both parties - Section 86 of Finance Act, 1994 —
Commissioner of GST & C. Ex., Chennai v. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. (Mad.) .......... 29
Area Based Exemption - Migration to GST - Exemption to industrial units
for period not exceeding 10 years - New industrial unit for manufacture
of motor vehicles established at Hardwar, Uttarakhand commenced
commercial production in its industrial unit from 7-4-2008 - Rescission of
exemption notification and beneficial incentives granted to unit ceased to
continue w.e.f. 1-7-2017 - On 5-10-2017 Budgetary Support Scheme
notified providing reimbursements of Central Government’s share of the
cash component of CGST and IGST, i.e., 58% of CGST and 29% of IGST,
in lieu of exemption provided under exemption notification - On a
petition seeking 100% benefit - HELD : 100% tax exemption under
industrial policy envisaged under previous regime - Said policy can no
longer be invoked and therefore, exemption notifications issued
implementing said policy also have lost mandate - Introduction of
Budgetary Support Scheme not to entitle petitioner support on entire
fiscal benefits as originally envisaged under 2003 policy - Budgetary
Support Scheme under GST not in lieu of exemptions that were granted
under previous fiscal incentives schemes for providing exemptions under
Central Excise Act, 1944 and other such legislations - Recognizing
hardships arising out to withdrawal of exemptions notifications not to be
understood or categorized as an admission of any such right in favour of
petitioner - GST a destination based tax, exemptions, under GST regime
having entirely different dimensions and therefore no area-based
exemptions envisaged under GST regime - Budgetary Support Scheme
not an exemption under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 -
Rationale of providing support to extent of Central Government’s share
of CGST and IGST also based on reasoning which cannot be questioned
by petitioner - Entire gamut of taxation completely restructured and
petitioner cannot as matter of right claim that Central Government
should bear burden and also give Budgetary support to extent of entire
tax, irrespective of fact that a portion thereof passed on to States - States
not bound to take a cut on tax collected from petitioner under any statute
or any equitable principle such as promissory estoppel - Petitioner cannot
question sharing of Revenues recommended by Finance Commission -
Rationale for fixing 58% having reasonable nexus to support extended
under Budgetary Support Scheme and did not require judicial
intervention - Erstwhile Excise duty and other duties levied by Central
Government in erstwhile regime not comparable with existing CGST -
Plea of promissory estoppel not applicable as recession of notification
and vires of Section 174 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 not
challenged — Hero Motocorp. Ltd. v. Union of India (Del.) ................. 99
Bail - Anticipatory bail - Generation of fake and fabricated documents
availed or to make others avail illegal input tax credit causing huge loss
to Revenue - Applicants ready and willing to abide by all conditions,
including conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to
file application before competent court for their remand with their rights
to oppose such application on merits kept open - Bail granted with
conditions - Leave to Investigating Agency to apply to competent

GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  79