SIKKIM HIGH COURT ISSUES JUDGEMENT ON ZYDUS WELLNESS-SIKKIM V/S THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND OTHERS

GANGTOK, India, Aug. 29 -- Sikkim High Court issued the following judgment/order on Aug. 7:

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 Others1 . 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 view that, issuance of clarification by the Finance Department, UT of Jammu and Kashmir, has necessitated revisiting of claim of the petitioner by the Adjudicating Authority.

7. In view of the above, these petitions are disposed of by providing as under:

The impugned order passed by respondent No.3 is quashed and the mattes remanded to respondent No.3 to reconsider the entire issue having regard to the clarification issued by the Department of Finance, UT of Jammu and Kashmir Bearing No.FD-ST/29/2022- 03, dated 26-4-2022 and pass appropriate orders on merits."

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://hcs.gov.in/hcs/hg_orders/201100000102024_8.pdf

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.