Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Held
The High Court held that the rejection of claims on the technical ground of being filed before UID issuance was illegal, as the delay in UID allotment was due to the authorities' failure to process the petitioner's earlier application. The Court set aside the rejection orders and directed the authorities to process the petitioner's claims and sanction eligible reimbursements within three months.
Facts
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. applied for budgetary support under a GST scheme for July 2017-June 2018. Their claims were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that they were made for a period prior to the issuance of their Unique ID (UID) registration, which was obtained on 31.10.2018. The petitioner had initially filed a manual application for UID in December 2017, which the respondents failed to process.
Key Issues
Whether claims for budgetary support can be rejected solely because they relate to a period prior to UID issuance, when the delay in obtaining the UID was caused by the authorities' failure to process an earlier application. Whether the authorities can take advantage of their own wrong to deny legitimate claims.
Sections Cited
Notification No. 10(1)/2017-DBA-II/NER dated 05.10.2017, CBEC Circular No. 1060/9/2017-CX dated 27.11.2017, Circular dated 05.10.2018
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 W.P. (C) No. 48 of 2020 Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM: GANGTOK (Civil Extra Ordinary Jurisdiction) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- D.B.: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 48 of 2020
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited, Represented by Samik Sarkar, Attorney Holder of Glenmark, Pharmaceuticals Limited, Samlik-Marchak, Industrial Growth Centre, Near Ranipool, East Sikkim, Sikkim – 737 135. .… Petitioner
versus
Union of India, Through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi – 110 001. 2. Director, Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 001. 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Gangtok Division, Gangtok, Indra By-Pass Road, Near District Court, Sichey, East Sikkim, Gangtok – 737 101. 4. The Commissioner of CGST,
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Sikkim High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.