2023-VIL-618-SIK
  1. Home
  2. 2023-VIL-618-SIK

SGST High Court Cases

GST - Eligibility to benefit of Budgetary Support Scheme for the ‘residual period’ subsequent to change of ownership/constitution of unit - Petitioners case that change in the constitution of unit cannot disentitle it from the benefit of the Budgetary Support Scheme when they were earlier given the benefit - Whether the petitioners entitled to the budgetary support under the Budgetary Support Scheme after change of ownership or slump sale of unit or its constitution – HELD - Budgetary Support Scheme was a support given to the existing manufacturing units operating in Sikkim since the said units had not been able to enjoy the full benefit of exemption notification no.20/2007-CE for the entire period - Under the CGST Act, 2017, it is the ‘person’ as defined under section 2(84) who is liable to the tax thereunder. Consequently, the Budgetary Support Scheme which is limited to the tax which accrues to the Central Government under the CGST Act, 2017 and IGST Act, 2017 is liable to be paid by the ‘person’ - Reading the definition of ‘person’ under section 2(84) and the requirement of registration under Section 22 of such ‘persons’ makes it clear that petitioners were required to be registered after the change in ownership - Consequently, both the petitioners, who were separate and distinct legal entities from the previous ‘persons’ who were eligible under exemption notification 20/2007-CE, could not have filed the application for budgetary support - The petitioners were not ‘eligible units’ as defined under para 4.1 of the budgetary scheme. The intention of the Government of India in providing the Budgetary Support Scheme was to support those ‘eligible units’ for the ‘residual period’ not exceeding ten years of commercial production during which they would have been eligible to avail exemption for the specified goods under exemption notification no. 20/2007-CE - Clearly, the exemption under exemption notification no. 20/2007-CE was to those manufacturers who have made investments in the State of Sikkim - the petitioners could not legally claim that they were entitled to the exemption under the exemption Notification No. 20/2007-CE as they did not exist then – the writ petitions are dismissed
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Biweekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GSTAT Rules & Industry Preparedness
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?