HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J
Zydus Wellness-Sikkim – Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax and Others – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rejection of budgetary support claims. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's assessment of counsel's arguments. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. judicial comity requires consistency in court rulings. (Para 6) |
| 4. final judgment and order dismissing the case. (Para 7 , 8) |
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the Order dated 27-06- 2022, of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Gangtok Division, vide which it was inter alia ordered that the taxpayer had claimed budgetary support of Rs.59,44,977/- (Rupees fifty nine lakhs, forty four thousand, nine hundred and seventy seven) only, however, on verification it is found that the eligible budgetary support payable is in the negative and hence, the taxpayer is not eligible for the budgetary support claim amount.
2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the Judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court in WA No.02 of 2024 ( Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited vs. Union of India and Others ). It was contended that the Division Bench had discussed and disposed of the same issue in the matter and had directed the Respondent to consider the claims of the Petitioner from July, 2017 to S
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.