2026-VIL-365-CHG

SGST High Court Cases

GST – Change in tax regime, Continuation of tax incentive granted by subsidy relaxation and refund of VAT and CST - Withdrawal of tax incentive after enactment of GST law – Petitioner’s case that incentive extended to the petitioner was never withdrawn by the State Government therefore petitioner is still entitled to continue with the incentive and other subsidies – HELD - As per the proviso to Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 the tax exemption granted as an incentive against investment through a Notification shall not continue as a privilege if the said notification is rescinded on or after the appointed day. The provisions makes it clear that tax exemption granted as incentive against an investment through a Notification shall continue, if it is not withdrawn or rescinded - In the present case, the State Government has not placed any document on record to show that the tax relaxation extended to the petitioner was ever withdrawn prior to the appointed day under the GST Act – The Supreme Court in Hero Motocorp Limited v. Union of India, held that despite a subsequent statute specifically providing for rescinding the benefits granted under an earlier statute, the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be used to compel the Government to stand by the representation made through the earlier notification. Accordingly, the order rejecting the petitioner's representations is quashed and the respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the representations in light of the provisions of Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act and the law laid down by the Supreme Court – The petition is disposed of

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page