ARUN GOEL vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 07.02.2024
+ W.P.(C) 15358/2023 & CM APPL. 61616/2023
ARUN GOEL ….. Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ….. Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Mr. D.K. Devesh, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Farman Ali, Senior Panel Counsel with Ms. Usha Jamnal and Mr. Krishan Kumar, Advocate for UOI.
Mr. Anurag Ojha, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Shubham Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM:-
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 05.06.2023, whereby the respondents have declined to accept the recommendation made by the Chief Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities by his order dated 06.04.2023. Petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondents to grant GST Concession Certificate to the petitioner so that petitioner can avail concessional rate of GST and seek refund of the GST paid on purchase of a vehicle.
2. Petitioner is a person with disability and intended to purchase a four-wheeler with specific concession of GST.
3. Petitioner applied to the respondents on 01.07.2019 in terms of Notification dated 01.05.2018.
4. Subject application of the petitioner was returned on 26.07.2019 on the ground that the seal of the certifying doctor was not clear and the signature of the Ortho was also required on the supporting documents.
5. Petitioner in the meantime had already purchased a Ciaz Smart Hybrid vehicle registered on 22.07.2019 which was classified as an invalid carriage.
6. Petitioner thereafter once again made an application on 17.08.2019, claiming a certificate of concessional rate of tax. Said application was returned on 24.10.2019 by the respondents on the ground that the policy had been revised and as such petitioner was called upon to apply afresh under the revised guidelines.
7. As per learned counsel for petitioner, petitioner is covered under the 2018 policy and 2019 policy could not be made applicable to his case.
8. Learned counsel for respondents submits that a proposal was under consideration for amending the policy and as such applications were being returned. He further submits that Notification was issued by the Ministry of Finance on 30.09.2019, amending the Schedule to the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and pursuant to the said an amendment, the policy was revised and revised guidelines were issue on 24.10.2019 and as such, petitioner was required to submit an application afresh.
9. We are unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for respondents for the reason that petitioner had initially applied on 01.07.2019, when the 2018 policy was already in force. Thereafter, petitioner purchased the vehicle and got it registered on 22.07.2019 and re-applied on 17.08.2019, after the application had been returned.
10. Even as on the date when petitioner applied on 17.08.2019, the 2018 policy was in force. Amendment to the Schedule by the Ministry of Finance was notified on 30.09.2019 and the policy was thereafter amended on 24.10.2019. Application of the petitioner which was submitted before the amendment in the Notification or the policy was liable to be considered only in terms of the policy that was in force on the date when application was submitted i.e. 2018 policy.
11. We are informed that under the 2018 policy, there was no restriction in terms of the length of the vehicle or the date of the purchase of the vehicle.
12. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the applicants were permitted refund of duty even after the vehicle was purchased and there was no mandatory requirement of obtaining an entitlement certificate before purchase, which has only been introduced in the 2019 policy. Learned counsel further submits that respondents have even permitted similar refund pertaining to applications made before the 2019 policy was notified.
13. Be that as it may, since the application of the petitioner was submitted before the policy was amended, the same was liable to be considered under the 2018 policy and could not have been returned on 24.10.2019.
14. Petitioner had also approached the Chief Commissioner of persons with Disabilities and the Commissioner by order dated 06.04.2023 had issued directions to the Respondent to apply the 2018 policy but by order dated 05.06.2023, the Respondents have held that the said policy is not applicable.
15. In view of our aforesaid findings, the order dated 05.06.2023 of the Respondents is not sustainable. The same is accordingly quashed.
16. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner dated 17.08.2019 in terms of the 2018 policy. In case petitioner is found eligible in terms of the said policy, appropriate concession certificate be issued to the petitioner and petitioner be refunded the excess GST collected in terms of the said policy. Application of the petitioner be considered and disposed of within a maximum period of four weeks from today.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
FEBRUARY 7, 2024/NA
W.P.(C) 15358/2023 Page 2 of 4