1. Home

SGST High Court Cases

GST - Scheme of Budgetary Support under Goods and Services Tax Regime – Manner of claim of benefit under Budgetary Support Scheme - Petitioner filed budgetary support for the month of July 2017 and August 2017 separately on monthly basis - Rejection of budgetary support claimed on monthly basis on the ground that budgetary support scheme envisaged working out on a quarterly basis on claims to be filed on quarterly basis - Whether the budgetary support claimed by the petitioner for the month of July 2017 and August 2017 separately is valid when the Scheme envisaged claims to be filed on quarterly basis - HELD - The Budgetary Support Scheme mandated that it should be worked out on quarterly basis for which claims shall be filed on a quarterly basis. Although the Circular dated 27.11.2017 permitted manual application for budgetary support for the quarter ending September, 2017 it did not digress from the mandate of paragraph 5.4 of the Budgetary Support Scheme requiring the filing of the claim on quarterly basis and working the same out also on quarterly basis - The Circular dated 10.01.2019 permitted the assessee to provide month wise details in the table annexed to the refund application to enable speedier and accurate verification of the refunds claims. Thus, the Circular dated 10.01.2019 was issued to make easier the process of verification of refund claim by the authorities as an assessee would file monthly returns under the GST whereas the refund application is for the quarter. The said Circular did not permit the assessee to make monthly claims as opposed to the mandate of paragraph 5.4 of the Budgetary Support Scheme - The petitioner did not follow the budgetary scheme or the instructions of the two Circulars dated 27.11.2017 and 10.01.2019 and file the claim application on a quarterly basis, instead the petitioner filed separate claims for the month of July 2017 and August 2017 under one covering letter - The budgetary support under the Budgetary Support Scheme is in the nature of grant and not refund of duty under taxation law. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to satisfy the requirements of the Budgetary Support Scheme and follow the procedure prescribed. When a procedure is prescribed, the petitioner while seeking the grant of budgetary support, is required to follow that procedure and not work out a different procedure for the authorities to follow. The fact that budgetary support was given to the petitioner for the other three quarters, it is evident that there was no malice on the part of the authorities while rejecting the claim for budgetary support for the quarter July 2017 to September 2017 - petitioner is not entitled to any relief as sought for in the present writ petition – the writ petition is dismissed - Calculation of Budgetary Support - In their initial separate applications for the month of July 2017 and August 2017 the IGST paid in cash was Rs.58,23,079/- and Rs.5,31,04,690/- respectively. As against that, the balance of ITC of CGST was zero for both the months of July 2017 and August 2017. However, for the months of September the balance of ITC of CGST was Rs.12,59,63,822/- - as the petitioner made separate applications for July 2017 and August 2017 without including the balance of ITC of CGST for the month of September 2017 they could attain positive budgetary support for each of the months separately and claim it. The petitioner did not make any claim for September 2017 in which the balance of ITC of CGST was Rs. 12,59,63,822/- as they would not be entitled to any budgetary support because of the balance of ITC of CGST for the month of September 2017 - What was required to be done by the petitioner was to make the claim for the quarter July 2017 to September 2017. The Budgetary Support Scheme had envisaged the grant of budgetary support to be worked out quarterly on a claim made for the quarter and not for separate months. Therefore, when the petitioner was required by the authorities to modify their initial applications to a quarterly basis as required under the law they had no choice but to reflect the balance of ITC of CGST for the month of September 2017 as well. This led the petitioner to calculate their own budgetary support in the negative correctly as done in the application mentioned by the petitioner in the writ petition but filed by the respondent in the counter affidavit.
Download File
show more Judgements  

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

GST Video

Analysis of Union Budget
By Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?