The court's decision emphasized the limitations on amendments under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, stating that amendments challenging the vires of statutory provisions must be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties and should not change the nature and character of the original petition.

ORDER

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The Petitioner has filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, “CPC”), seeking to insert amendments in the Writ Petition. The proposed amendments are as follows;

Insertion of Paragraph 4.1 and 4.2 after the existing Paragraph 4:

“4.1. The Petitioner is also challenging the proviso to Section 174(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 which provides that tax exemption granted as an incentive through a notification would not continue if such notification is rescinded.

4.2 Further, the Petitioner is also challenging the Notification No.21/2017-C.E. dated 18.07.2017 vide which the exemption notifications issued under the erstwhile regime (including Notification No.20/2007-C.E. dated 25.04.2007) were rescinded.” <.UL>

Replacing the contents of the existing Paragraph 32 with the following:

“32. Thus, aggrieved by the impugned proviso to Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act, the impugned Notification No.21/2017-C.E. dated 18.07.2017 and the Budgetary Support Scheme which have resulted in denial of vested right to the Petitioner to continue to enjoy the benefits promised to it, the Petitioner is filing the present petition based on the following grounds. Each ground is independent and without prejudice to one another.”

Incorporating Paragraph A18 after the existing paragraph A17:

“A.18 It is submitted that the proviso to Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act and the impugned Notification No.21/2017-C.E. dated 18.07.2017 are in effect taking away the vested rights of the Petitioner by reducing the exemptions/benefits promised to the Petitioner. Thus, the impugned proviso to Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act and the impugned Notification No.21/2017-C.E. dated 18.07.2017 are contrary to the established principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation as submitted in foregoing Grounds. For this reason, the impugned proviso to Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act and the impugned Notification No.21/2017-C.E. dated 18.07.2017 are liable to be struck down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the vested rights of the Petitioner. It may be noted that this submission is without prejudice to Petitioner’s contention that the exemptions promised to the Petitioner is a vested right.”

Incorporating the following clauses in place of existing clauses (c) to (e):

“(c) strike down the proviso to Section 174(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as unconstitutional being contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India;

(d) strike down the Notification No.21/2017-C.E. dated 18.07.2017 issued by the Respondent No.1 as unconstitutional being contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India

(e) Hold that proviso to Section 174(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Notification No.21/2017-C.E. dated 18.07.2017 and the Scheme of Budgetary support under Goods and Service Tax regime to the units located in the States of Jammu & Kashmir, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and North-East including Sikkim to Article 14 and the vested rights of the Petitioner;

(f) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and fair and circumstances of the case;

(g) For such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.”

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the proposed amendments are necessary for an effective adjudication of the main Writ Petition and will under no circumstance cause any harm, loss or prejudice to the Respondents. The proposed amendments do not change the nature and character of the Writ Petition and are being sought bona fide in the interest of justice. The proposed amendments hence be considered and allowed.

4. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.1 and 2 filed his reply to the I.A. and in the averments thereof objected to the proposed amendments. Learned Counsel contended that p