IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, SANJEEV NARULA, JJ.
M/S. Hero Motocorp Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 505 of 2020 & Cm Appl. 1328 of 2020
Decided On : 02-03-2020
GST - EXEMPTION - INDUSTRIAL POLICY - AREA BASED EXEMPTION - BUDGETARY SUPPORT SCHEME - PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL - VESTED RIGHT - SECTION 174(2)(C) OF CGST ACT - DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL CANNOT BE INVOKED AGAINST A LEGISLATIVE ACT - PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, engaged in manufacturing of two wheelers in Uttarakhand, was granted 100% excise duty exemption for a period of 10 years from the date of commencement of commercial production, vide notification issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Post introduction of GST, the exemption notification was rescinded and the Petitioner was granted budgetary support to the extent of 58% of CGST and 29% of IGST, in lieu of exemption provided under the exemption notification.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Petitioner had no vested right to be entitled to budgetary support of entire CGST and IGST. The industrial policy of Respondent No.1 to grant area-based exemption has undergone complete change. Consequently, the exemption granted under the Central Excise Exemption Notification giving effect to the said policy has also lost its relevance and is no longer in force. The Court further held that the plea of promissory estoppel cannot be enforced against an act done in accordance with the statutory provisions of law. Under Section 174 (2) (c) of the CGST Act, express provision has been made by the Parliament to provide that any tax exemption granted as an incentive against investment through a notification under, inter alia, the erstwhile Central Excise Act, shall not continue as a privilege if the said notification is rescinded.
Issues: Whether the Petitioner has a vested right to be entitled to budgetary support of entire CGST and IGST. Whether the plea of promissory estoppel can be enforced against an act done in accordance with the statutory provisions of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Petitioner had no vested right to be entitled to budgetary support of entire CGST and IGST. The industrial policy of Respondent No.1 to grant area-based exemption has undergone complete change. Consequently, the exemption granted under the Central Excise Exemption Notification giving effect to the said policy has also lost its relevance and is no longer in force. The Court further held that the plea of promissory estoppel cannot be enforced against an act done in accordance with the statutory provisions of law. Under Section 174 (2) (c) of the CGST Act, express provision has been made by the Parliament to provide that any tax exemption granted as an incentive against investment through a notification under, inter alia, the erstwhile Central Excise Act, shall not continue as a privilege if the said notification is rescinded.
Final Decision: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
Brief Facts
1. The Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing of two wheelers in the State of Uttarakhand. It was operating and registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944. With the introduction of Goods and Services Tax (“GST”) w.e.f. 01.07.2017, it now has registration under the said Central and State GST Acts.
2. In the year 2002, special packages of incentives were announced to promote industrial development in the State of Uttarakhand. In pursuance thereto, the 1st Respondent- Union of India through the 4th Respondent- Ministry of Commerce & Industry issued an Office Memorandum dated 07.01.2003, detailing the package of incentives. The fiscal incentive provided under the memorandum included 100% ab inito Central Excise Duty Exemption to new industrial units for a period of 10 years from the date of commencement of commercial production. The relevant extract of Office Memorandum/Policy read as under:
(1) New industrial units and existing industrial units on their substantial expansion as defined, set up in Growth Centres, Industrial Infrastructure Development Centres (IIDCs), Industrial Estates, Export Processing Zones, Theme Parks (Food Processing Parks, Software Technology Parks, etc.) as stated in Annexure-I and other areas as notified from time to time by the Central Government, are entitled to:
(a) 100% (hundred percent) outright excise duty exemption for a period of 10 years from the date of commencement of commercial production.
(b) 100% income tax exemption for initial period of five years and thereafter 30% for companies and 25% for other than companies for a further period of five years for the entire states of Uttaranchal and Himachal Pradesh from the date of commencement of commercial production.
(II) All New Industries in the notified location would be eligible for capital investment subsidy @ 15% of their investment in plant & machinery, subject to a ceiling of Rs. 30 lakh. The existing units will also be entitled to this subsidy on their substantial expansion, as defined. (III) Thrust Sector Industries as mentioned in Annexure-II are entitled to similar concessions as mentioned in para 3 (I) & (II) above in the entire state of Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh without any area restrictions."
3. In line with the objective of the above noted memorandum and in order to implement the incentive scheme, the Central government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest, issued Notification No. 50/2003- C.E, dated 10.06.2003 (hereinafter referred to as “exemption notification”) in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) read with sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957) and sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978 (40 of 1978). This notification exempted certain goods from whole of the duty of excise, or additional duty of excise, as the case may be, leviable thereon under any of the said Acts, in respect of certain industrial units located in the State of Uttarakhand (earlier Uttaranchal) and Himachal Pradesh. The notification also provided that the exemption shall apply to industrial units for a period not exceeding 10 years from the date of publication of notification in the Official Gazette or from the date of commencement of commercial production, whichever is later.
4. Since the Petitioner’s unit qualified for exemption under the aforementioned notification, it established a new industrial unit for manufacture of motor vehicles at Haridwar, Uttarakhand and commenced commercial production in its industrial unit from 07.04.2008 and continued to avail the benefits of the exemption notification till 01.07.2017.
5. Then, the Constitution 101st Amendment Act, 201
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.