Page 198 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

100 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
tive 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 prin-
ciple such as promissory estoppel - Petitioner cannot question sharing of Rev-
enues 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 exist-
ing CGST - Plea of promissory estoppel not applicable as recession of notifica-
tion and vires of Section 174 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 not
challenged. - The fiscal benefits promised in return for making investments in the State
of Uttarakhand were privileges which were granted under law that no longer holds the
field. The rights and the obligations that were flowing under the tax regime originated
from the tax structure that existed when the policy was framed. Such obligations cannot
stay alive, if the legislation itself has undergone a complete overhaul by advent of intro-
duction of GST legislations. Therefore, the Budgetary Support Scheme cannot said to be
in contravention of the fiscal incentive policies or promise made by Respondent No. 1 at
the time of introducing area-based exemptions. In the previous tax regime, taxes were
being levied on different incidents, such as “manufacturing” in the case of the levy of
Excise duty. This is no longer a relevant consideration. [paras 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,
28, 29, 35]
Exemption - Change in law - Migration to GST - Doctrine of promisso-
ry estoppel - Plea of promissory estoppel cannot be enforced against an act
done in accordance with statutory provisions of law - Express provision in Sec-
tion 174(2)(c) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 providing that any
tax exemption granted as an incentive against investment through notification
under erstwhile Central Excise Act, 1944 not to continue as privilege if notifi-
cation rescinded - Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. granting 100% exemption re-
scinded - Absence of challenge to recission of notification or vires of Section
174 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Pleas of promissory estoppel
not maintainable. [(1996) 6 SCC 634, (2011) 3 SCC 193 relied on, (2016) 6 SCC 766,
2019 SCC Online Bom. 1485 distinguished]. [para 35]
Petition dismissed
CASES CITED
I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Paperboards v. Mandal Revenue Officer
— (1996) 6 SCC 634 — Relied on .................................................................................................. [Para 34]
K.M. Refineries and Infraspace (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
— 2019 SCC Online Bom. 1485 — Distinguished ...................................................... [Paras 10, 13, 29]
Manuelsons Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala — (2016) 6 SCC 766 — Distinguished . [Paras 10, 30, 31]
Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd. v. State of U.P. — (2011) 3 SCC 193 — Relied on ................................... [Para 33]
State of Bihar v. Supraphat Steel — (1999) 1 SCC 31 — Referred ........................................................ [Para 9]
U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Sant Steels and Alloys (P) Ltd. — (2008) 2 SCC 777 — Referred ........ [Para 33]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri S. Ganesh, Senior Advocate with Ms.
Priyanka Rathi, Rohit Arora and Ms. Ashwini
Chandrasekaran, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
S/Shri Amit Bansal, Aman Rewaria, Ms. Vipasha
Mishra and Akhil Kulshrestha Advocates, for the
Respondent.
[Judgment per : Sanjeev Narula, J.]. - Brief Facts : The Petitioner is en-
gaged in the business of manufacturing of two wheelers in the State of Uttarak-
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  262