ICICI

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited Vs Union of India and Others (Sikkim High Court)

LinkedIn


Court :
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK

Brief :
The Petitioner has filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, “CPC”), seeking to insert amendments in the Writ Petition. The proposed amendments are as follows;

Citation :
I.A. No.03 of 2020 in WP(C) No.47 of 2018

HE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
(Civil Extraordinary Jurisdiction)
DATED : 2nd NOVEMBER, 2020

DIVISION BENCH : THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE

I.A. No.03 of 2020 in WP(C) No.47 of 2018

Petitioner : M/s. Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited
versus
Respondent : Union of India and Others
pplication under Order VI Rule 17 read with
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Appearance
Ms. Gita Bista and Mr. Karan Sachdev, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr. B. K. Gupta, Advocate for Respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Santosh Kumar Chettri, Government Advocate for Respondent No.3.

O R D E R

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The Petitioner has filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, “CPC”), seeking to insert amendments in the Writ Petition. The proposed amendments are as follows;

Insertion of Paragraph 4.1 and 4.2 after the existing Paragraph 4:

“4.1. The Petitioner is also challenging the proviso to Section 174(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 which provides that tax exemption granted as an incentive through a notification would not continue if such notification is rescinded.

4.2 Further, the Petitioner is also challenging the Notification No.21/2017-C.E. dated 18.07.2017 vide which the exemption notifications issued under the erstwhile regime (including Notification No.20/2007-C.E. dated 25.04.2007) were rescinded.”

Replacing the contents of the existing Paragraph 32 with the following:

“32. Thus, aggrieved by the impugned proviso to Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act, the impugned Notification No.21/2017-C.E. dated 18.07.2017 and the Budgetary Support Scheme which have resulted in denial of vested right to the Petitioner to continue to enjoy the benefits promised to it, the Petitioner is filing the present petition based on the following grounds. Each ground is independent and without prejudice to one another.”

Incorporating Paragraph A18 after the existing paragraph A17:

“A.18 It is submitted that the proviso to Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act and the impugned Notification No.21/2017-C.E. dated 18.07.2017 are in effect taking away the vested rights of the Petitioner by reducing the exemptions/benefits promised to the Petitioner. Thus, the impugned proviso to Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act and the impugned Notification No.21/2017-C.E. dated 18.07.2017 are contrary to the established principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation as submitted in foregoing Grounds. For this reason, the impugned proviso to Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act and the impugned Notification No.21/2017-C.E. dated 18.07.2017 are liable to be struck down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the vested rights of the Petitioner. It may be noted that this submission is without prejudice to Petitioner’s contention that the exemptions promised to the Petitioner is a vested right.”

To know more in details find the attachment file

 

Guest
on 24 November 2020
Published in LAW
Views : 53
downloaded 17 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags