According to the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Courts, the interpretation of the GST Budgetary Support Scheme cannot be broad or lenient. The court, consisting of Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh and Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul, noted that the new scheme offers specific benefits in the form of budgetary support to units that received excise duty exemption under the previous tax regime before the GST was introduced. However, it is important to understand that budgetary support is not unconditional and applies only under certain conditions rather than applying to all units without exception.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was a registered partnership firm under the MSME Act and manufactured chemical products. They filed a petition because their claim for budgetary support was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax. The petitioner had claimed under a scheme introduced by the Indian government in 2017, which aimed to provide support in place of earlier excise duty exemptions. However, the respondent rejected the claim stating that the goods must have been manufactured before July 1, 2017, under an 8-digit HSN code. The petitioner argued that their manufacturing unit qualifies for budgetary support as they produced goods covered under Chapter 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and had previously availed of excise duty exemption. They argued that they are eligible for support under the new scheme.
Under the new GST regime, previous notifications and the Exemption Notification under the Central Excise Act were revoked. However, the Government of India decided to provide budgetary support to qualified manufacturing units in Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, North Eastern States, and Sikkim through different industrial promotion schemes. This support is only available to units that were eligible for previous excise duty exemptions and refunds. The new scheme is separate from the earlier schemes and defines an "eligible unit" as one that was already benefiting from excise duty exemptions before July 1, 2017.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The petitioner argued that the Exemption Notification includes all goods in Chapter 38 for exemption from excise duty. They contended that the Central Government does not distinguish between different groups or sub-items within Chapter 38 when granting exemptions. Therefore, they argued that "specified goods" in the Exemption Notification should be interpreted as any goods within Chapter 38, rather than limited to specific sub-headings or entries.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondents rejected the petitioner's claim because they believed that the goods manufactured under the Exemption Notification were different from the goods manufactured under the new Scheme. They argued that the goods specified under the Exemption Notification (entry 38081099) were not the same as the goods manufactured by the petitioner under the new Scheme (entries 38089113, 38089199, 38089290, 38089340, 38089350, 38089390, 38089910, 38089990). Therefore, according to the respondents, the goods manufactured by the petitioner under the new Scheme would not be eligible for budgetary support.
Observations of the Court:
The court determined that accepting the petitioner's interpretation of the scheme notification would create an unfair situation. If every unit that qualified for an exemption under a previous notification and started manufacturing new goods after July 1, 2017, claimed eligibility for budgetary support under the new scheme, it would create an uneven playing field. New units that produce or clear similar items but do not qualify for the benefit of budgetary support would be at a disadvantage.
The court noted that the 2017 Scheme intends to provide continued support to units that previously enjoyed excise duty exemptions for manufacturing specific goods. If a unit had been manufacturing and benefiting from excise duty exemption for a particular item, it would continue to receive budgetary support for that item. On the other hand, if a unit had not been manufacturing a specific item and therefore did not avail excise duty exemption for it before July 1, 2017, they would not be eligible for budgetary support for that item under the new Scheme, the court noted.
The court further held that just producing an item covered under the general category of Tariff 3808 is not enough. The unit must have received excise duty exemption by clearing that specific item from the unit to be considered as "specified goods." The previous exemption notification only applied to specific goods with 8-digit HSN codes within the broader category of Tariff 3808 and its sub-headings. Simply manufacturing goods falling under the broader 4-digit or 6-digit HSN codes of Tariff 3808 was not sufficient. Only the items specifically mentioned with 8-digit HSN codes under Tariff 3808 and its sub-headings were eligible for excise duty exemption. Therefore, according to the court, only those specific items for which excise duty exemption was granted under the previous notification and continued to be manufactured after the 2017 Scheme was implemented would be eligible for budgetary support under the new Scheme.
The decision of the Court:
The Court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: M/s Best Crop Science Industrial Area Versus Union of India
Coram: Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul
Case No.: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1171 of 2022
Advocate for the Applicant: Advocate Jagpaul Singh
Advocate for the Respondent: Advocate Pallavi Sharma
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
