Sikkim High Court: In exercise of its Civil Extraordinary Jurisdiction, Single-judge Bench of Bhaskar Raj Pradhan*, J. dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, against the order issued by the respondents rejecting Glenmark Pharma’s (petitioner) claim for budgetary support for the quarter of 2017 under the Scheme of Budgetary Support under Goods and Services Tax Regime (“Scheme”). The Court held that it was incumbent on the petitioner to satisfy the requirements of the Scheme and follow the procedure prescribed rather than devise a different procedure for the authorities to follow.
Background
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order issued by the respondents, that rejected the petitioner’s claim for budgetary support for the period of July-September 2017 under the Scheme, when their claim for October 2017 to June 2018 was allowed under the same Scheme. The Scheme provides budgetary support to units located in Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, and Sikkim.
The Scheme was introduced in October 2017, and in November 2017, the CBEC issued a Circular (“2017 Circular”) regarding the procedure for manual disbursal of budgetary support under the GST regime and pointed that the claim for the quarter ending September 2017 had become due already. The 2017 Circular had also required that the units be registered manually through application. Another Circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (“CBITC”) in January 2019 (“2019 Circular”) sought to meet the issue regarding difficulty in verification of the refund claim. Both the Circulars also provided that the claims be made quarterly and not monthly.
The petitioner made two separate claims for budgetary support under the Scheme, for July and August 2017, instead of a compiled quarterly claim for July-August-September quarter.
The writ petition neither challenged the Scheme nor the Circulars issued by the Central Boards but contended that the respondents had rejected the claim for budgetary support in the contravention of the Scheme and the two Circulars.
Issue
Whether the budgetary support claimed separately by the petitioner for the months of July and August of 2017 in their initial applications should have been considered in their favour by the respondent?
Court’s analysis and judgment
The Court found that the scheme provides the budgetary support shall be computed and claimed quarterly. However, as per the impugned order, the respondent had sanctioned Rs. 0 to the petitioner as budgetary support for the July-September 2017 quarter, on the premise that the petitioner had claimed budgetary support of Rs. 9,24,99,472 in negative.
According to the petitioner, they were directed orally by the respondents to resubmit the applications claiming budgetary support. However, the petitioner had also suggested that the claim application rejected by the impugned order was filed in persistence of the authorities and not voluntarily; therefore, contradicting the oral direction claim in the petition.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s intention was to make the authorities work out the budgetary support based on monthly claims as opposed to the quarterly claims mandated under the Scheme.
The Court found that the details required under the Scheme and the Circulars were provided by the petitioner in the first instance, there would have been no requirement for the authorities to require the petitioner to resubmit. The details provided by the petitioner in the subsequent applications led to the calculation of budgetary support in the negative. It further stated the budgetary support is a grant, not a refund of duty.
The Court also found that it was incumbent on the petitioner to satisfy the requirements of the Scheme and follow the procedure prescribed rather than devise a different procedure for the authorities to follow. The petitioner failed to follow the Scheme and the Circulars by filing two separate claims for July and August 2017.
The Court found no malice on the part of the respondent while rejecting the claim for budgetary support for July to September 2017 quarter, and held the petitioner disentitled to any relief they sought through the writ petition.
[Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Sikk 20, decided on 06-05-2024]
*Judgment by: Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Advocates for the Petitioner: Rahul Tangri, Gita Bista, Pratikcha Gurung, Tanya Roy, Dipendra Chettri
Advocates for the Respondents: Sangita Pradhan, Deputy Solicitor General of India, Natasha Pradhan, Manasi Mukherjee
Buy Constitution of India HERE
