Back
2025 Supreme(Sikk) 102
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, J.
Zydus Wellness-Sikkim - Petitioner
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax and Others – Respondents
WP(C) No.10 of 2024
Decided On : 11-08-2025
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mayank Jain, Mr. Mukesh M. Patel and Mr. Hissay Gyaltsen, Advocates
For the Respondents : Ms. Sangita Pradhan, Deputy Solicitor General of India.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Mayank Jain, Mr. Mukesh M. Patel, Mr. Hissay Gyaltsen
For the Respondents: Ms. Sangita Pradhan
Court emphasized adherence to prior judicial decisions regarding budgetary support claims, stressing the importance of judicial comity in ensuring consistent rulings.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Budgetary support claim - Taxpayer's claim of budgetary support was rejected on grounds of ineligibility - The Court considered prior judgments which mandated reconsideration of claims for budgetary support based on legal clarifications and the necessity for accords to be followed. (Paras 2, 6, 12)
(B) Legal Principle - Judicial Comity - Courts must not issue orders conflicting with other competent court orders, ensuring harmony and respect in judicial processes (Paras 10, 11).
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner claimed budgetary support which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner stating the taxpayer was ineligible based on verification of claims.
Findings of Court:
Prior relevant judgments necessitated reconsideration of the claim based on compliance with established orders and clarifications from higher courts.
Issues: The Court addressed whether the petitioner was eligible for budgetary support based on past rulings and compliance with judicial procedures.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the relevant prior judgments and clarifications must be adhered to, asserting that the doctrine of judicial comity must guide decision-making.
Result: Writ Petition was disposed in favor of the Petitioner, directing reconsideration of the claim.
| 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) |
JUDGMENT :
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 September, 2017 on the same terms as was considered by the concerned authority in light of the Order of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh dated 28-02-2023, rendered in Coromandel International Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others, 2023(74) GSTL 208 (J & K and Ladakh) = MANU/JK/0166/2023. Hence this Petition be disposed of in terms of the Judgment of this Court (supra).
3. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India submits that she has no objection to the submissions advanced by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in view of the above cited Judgment of this High Court.
4. Considered submissions.
5. The Division Bench of this High Court, in WA No.02 of 2024 (Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited vs. Union of India and Others ), dated 15-05-2025 was considering the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.02 of 2023 ( Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited vs. Union of India and Others ), dated 06-05-2024, vide which, the Order dated 01-03-2022 of the Respondent No.3, was upheld and the Writ Petition dismissed. The attention of the Division Bench had been drawn to the Judgment of Coromandel International Ltd. (supra).
6. Having given due consideration to the submissions advanced, this Court in the WA (supra), observed inter alia as follows;
“8. In Coromandel International Ltd. (supra the order dated 02- 02-2021, passed by respondent no.3 therein (the adjudicating authority), rejecting the claim of the concerned petitioner, under budgetary support scheme, notified vide Notifications no. F.No.10(1)/2017-DBA-II/NER, dated 05-10-2017, SRO 519 dated 21- 12-2017 and SRO 521 dated 21- 12-2017 was assailed. The petitioner sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the budgetary support to it, by calculating the same on the quantum of cash tax paid through cash ledger account, on monthly basis, instead of adopting the calculations on quarterly basis. The petitioner had applied for reimbursement by way of budgetary support for the period, January 2020 to March 2020 and April 2020 to June 2020 before the Central Tax Authorities. The petitioner contended that, the adjudicating authority illegally and arbitrarily rejected the reimbursement under budgetary support, on the ground, that the petitioner had closing balance of input tax credit lying unutilized at the end of quarter and had reduced the budgetary support arbitrarily to the extent of the closing balance of input tax credit that remained unutilized at the end of the quarter. The petitioner dissatisfied with the order of rejection was before the High Court. The High Court took into consideration the departmental clarification dated 26-04-2022 (supra) and inter alia ordered as follows;
“6. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the v
