1. Petitioner sought budgetary support benefits under a scheme post amalgamation; impugned order rejected claim. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 4937
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sandeep Sharma, J
Pritika Auto Industries Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
CWP No.6535 of 2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ajay Vaidya
For the Respondents: Balram Sharma, Rajeev Sharma, Vijay Kumar Arora, Aditya Bharat, Hitansh, Avantika, Rashita
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ajay Vaidya
For the Respondents: Balram Sharma, Rajeev Sharma, Vijay Kumar Arora, Aditya Bharat, Hitansh, Avantika, Rashita
The court held that the eligibility for benefits under the Budgetary Support Scheme following amalgamation should be determined in accordance with the findings of the High Court of Sikkim, as upheld by the Supreme Court.
Headnote:(A) Budgetary Support Scheme - Amalgamation and Change of Ownership - Eligibility for benefits under the scheme after amalgamation with another entity, specifically where the exemption is extended to a 'Unit' and the new owner exercises the option to avail the benefit. (Para 4)
(B) Judicial Precedent - Application of Prior Adjudication - Where a similar issue has been decided by another High Court and subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court, the court may dispose of the matter by applying those findings mutatis mutandis. (Para 3, 7)
Issues: Whether the petitioner company is entitled to benefits under the Budgetary Support Scheme after amalgamation with another entity.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued unit-based exemption survives ownership change; revenue relied on clause barring relocation, expansion, ownership change. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. High Court of Sikkim already adjudicated identical issue, upheld by Supreme Court; no need to re-examine submissions. (Para 3 , 7 )
4. A prior decision on an identical legal issue binds the court; parties must comply with principles laid down therein. (Para 3 , 7 , 8 )
5. Petition allowed; impugned order quashed; respondents directed to reconsider afresh in light of High Court of Sikkim judgment. (Para 8 )
6. Does a prior judgment on an identical issue bind a court deciding a subsequent petition?
Yes, a court can dispose of a petition by making the directions in the prior judgment mutatis mutandis applicable, without re-examining submissions. (Para 3 , 7 )
7. What is the effect of a Supreme Court upholding a High Court judgment on a similar issue?
The High Court judgment attains finality and becomes binding, requiring the authority to consider the case afresh in light of that judgment. (Para 3 , 8 )
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:
i. Issue writ of certiorari quashing impugned order dated 03.02.2025 (Annexure P-17).
ii. issuance of a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to allow the claim applications of the petitioners, for the periods claimed in the application accordance with the scheme of budgetary support with interest;
iii. Issue writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to sanction the refund along with interest;
2. Though respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed reply refuting therein claim of the petitioner, but, before the case at hand could be heard and decided on merit, learned counsel representing the parties have placed on record copy of judgment passed by the High Court of Sikkim in Writ Appeal No. 09 of 2023, titled as Zydus Wellness Products Limited versus Union of India and Others, decided on 13.12.2024, wherein similar issue, as is sought to be decided in the instant proceedings, has already been decided by the aforesaid Court.
3. Having carefully perused the aforesaid judgment passed by the High Court of Sikkim vis-a-vis issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings, especially the relief clause, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the issue, which is sought to be decided in the instant proceedings, already stands adjudicated in Zydus Wellness Products Limited (supra), which has been further upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 18008-18009/2025, titled as Union of India & Ors versus Zydus Wellness Products Ltd.
4. Precisely, the case of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ajay Vaidya, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that in terms of Budgetary Support Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'Scheme'), the petitioner company is entitled to benefits under the aforesaid scheme even after amalgamation with another entity. To substantiate his aforesaid submission, he specifically invited attention of this Court to circular No. 960/03/2012-CX.3, dated 17.02.2012 (Annexure P-4), issued by Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, wherein under condition No. 3, it is stated as under:
"3. The above issues have been examined by the Board. As the exemption is extended to a 'Unit', any change in its ownership would not jeopardize the admissibility of exemption for the remaining part of the ten year exemption period subject to the condition that the new owner exercises his option in writing to avail of the benefit of the exemption Notification before effecting the first clearance."
5. To the contrary, Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, learned Senior Advocate representing the Department of Central Excise, specifically referred to notification dated 05.10.2017 (Annexure P-5), especially clauses 6 and 10 of the Scheme. Clause 6 deals with inspection of the eligible unit and clause 10 deals with residual issues relating to the scheme and provides that residual issues, if any, shall be decided by DIPP, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, whose decision shall be final and binding.
6. While referring to the impugned order dated 03.02.2025 (Annexure P-17) passed in the instant proceedings, Mr. Arora, specifically referred to communication dated 20.10.2021, which has been reproduced in the aforesaid order, to state that specific clarification was sought from Ministry of Commerce, Government of India in view of clause 10, wherein it came to be clarified that as per scheme/guidelines, if any, a unit goes for relocation, expansion and change in ownership, is not eligible under the scheme of budgetary support.
7. Having taken note of the aforesaid precise submissions made at the behest of learned counsel representing the parties vis-a-vis issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings, this Court
