SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Gau) 297

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
M/s North East Hi-Tech A Partnership Firm Formed Under The Provisions Of The Partnership Act, 1932 – Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India And Ors. Through The Finance Secretary – Respondent
WP(C) 740 of 2022
Decided on : 13-05-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR. D SAHU

Point of Law : Doctrine of substantial compliance is a judicial invention, equitable in nature, designed to avoid hardship in cases where a party does all that can reasonably be expected of it, but failed or faulted in some minor or inconsequent aspects which cannot be described as the “essence” or the “substance” of the requirement.

Headnote:

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 11A A, 5-A –Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 23(4), 29A – Commercial Codes Act, 2015 – Section 12A –Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Substantial expansion – Diversification – Memorandum – Substance” or “essence” of the statute-doctrine of substantial compliance is a judicial invention, equitable in nature, designed to avoid hardship in cases where a party does all that can reasonably be expected of it, but failed or faulted in some minor or inconsequent aspects which cannot be described as the “essence” or the “substance” of the requirement [Para 31]

Finding of the court:

Writ Petition and benefits thereof being given to tax payers by the GST council, the Circular so issued from time to time and also judgment of Bombay High Court and the Madras High Court and taking into consideration that Petitioner’s applications were filed for fixation of special rate for value addition – Court deems it appropriate and accordingly directs the Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Dibrugarh, Respondent herein to decide applications of Petitioner on its own merit as regards the claim for fixation of the special rate to actual value addition to manufactured goods of given financial years – Further taking into consideration that order in Original has a direct co-relation with question of fixation of special rate and its fall out, this court deems it appropriate and accordingly directs concerned Respondent Authority not to give effect to said order till such decision of Respondent applications for fixation special rate filed by Petitioner

Results: Writ petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. D.Sahu, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Girin Pegu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and Mr. S.C. Keyal, the learned Standing Counsel for the GST Department.

2. The present writ petition under 226 of the Constitution has been filed challenging the Order No.02/SR/(09-10/10-11/11-12/12-13/13-14/14-15/15-16/16-17/17-18/18-19/PR.COMMR.2021-22 dated 5/8/2021 and for a direction to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to expedite the proceedings relating to special rate fixation and not to initiate any recovery proceedings till the special rate asserted by the Respondent No. 2.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the Petitioner firm is an industrial unit carrying on manufacturing of M.S. Ingot falling under CETSH-72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion vide the Office Memorandum dated 1/4/2007 announced the North East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy (NEIIPP), 2007. In terms with the said industrial policy of the year 2007, various exemptions were assured to all new units as well as existing units which go in for substantial expansion, unless otherwise specified and which commence commercial production within the 10 years period from the date of the notification of the industrial policy, i.e. NEIIPP, 2007 for a period of 10 years from the date of commercial production. The location of the new as well as the existing industrial units carrying out a substantial expansion had to be in the North Eastern Region. The said industrial policy also stipulated that incentives on substantial expansion will be given to units effecting “an increase by not less than 25% in the value of the fixed capital investment in the plant and machinery for the purpose of expansion of the capacity/modernization and diversification” as against an increase of 33½ % which was prescribed in the earlier North East Industrial Policy, 1997. As regards excise duty exemption, it was stipulated that 100% excise duty exemption will be continued, on finished products manufactured in the North Eastern Region, as was available under the North East Industrial Policy,1997. However, in the cases where the CENVAT paid on the raw materials and intermediate products going into the production of finished products(other than the products which are otherwise exempt or subject to nil rate of duty) is higher than the excise duties payable on the finished products, ways and means to refund such overflow of CENVAT credit will be separately notified by the Ministry of Finance. In terms with the said industrial policy of 2017, the Central Excise Exemption which was granted under the North East Industrial Policy, 1997 vide the Notification Nos. 32/1999-CE and 33/1999-CE, both dated 8/7/1999 as amended from time to time were continued and a Notification No. 20/2007-CE dated 25/4/2007 was issued. The Petitioner which as already stated hereinabove, was in the business of manufacturing M.S. Ingot expanded its production capacity to avail the benefits under the Industrial Policy of 2007 and the incentives and exemptions granted therein. The Petitioner was allotted the Central Excise Registration No.AAEFN5081AXM001 and commenced its commercial production after its expansion w.e.f. 12/11/2013. It is the further case of the Petitioner in the writ petition that as the Petitioner’s industrial unit being an eligible unit, the Petitioner continued to avail exemption.

4. At this stage, it may be relevant to mention that the Government of India, Ministry of Finance in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-Section (1) of Section 5A of the Central Excise Act. 1944 issued the Notification No. 20/2007-CE, dated 25.4.2007, whereby exempted the Goods specified in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 other than those goods mentioned in Annexure to the said Notification. The terns for availing the said exemp

                  Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                  1
                  2
                  3
                  4
                  5
                  6
                  7
                  8
                  9
                  10
                  11
                  SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                  supreme today icon
                  logo-black

                  An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                  Please visit our Training & Support
                  Center or Contact Us for assistance

                  qr

                  Scan Me!

                  India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                  For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                  whatsapp-icon Back to top