Sri C Radhakrishna Shastry vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The appellant, Sri C. Radhakrishna Shastry, a disabled person, intended to purchase a car and was entitled to a GST concession as per Central Government policy. The Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises issued a certificate on July 17, 2019, confirming the car's suitability for physically handicapped persons. Upon approaching the car dealer (fourth respondent), the appellant was informed of a policy change and that only Ortho-disabled persons were entitled to the concession under a revised notification. The appellant had to wait for the car, which was not delivered promptly. The writ petition filed by the appellant seeking to uphold the validity of the GST concession certificate was dismissed by the Single Judge, who held that the benefit should have been availed in July 2019 before the subsequent notification. This appeal challenges that dismissal.

Held

The Court held that the GST concession certificate, issued by the Government of India without specifying a validity period, should be considered valid unless it can be demonstrated that the petitioner willfully defaulted or caused an inordinate delay. The Court found that the appellant had been issued the certificate on July 17, 2019, and subsequently had to wait for the car's delivery. When he approached the dealer after three months, his request was rejected due to a policy change. Correspondence ensued, and the dealer could not proceed without confirmation. The Court concluded that no willful default or delay could be attributed to the petitioner. Therefore, the Writ Appeal was allowed, and the GST concession certificate dated July 17, 2019, was treated as valid, entitling the appellant to the benefit thereof.

Key Issues

1. Whether the GST concession certificate dated July 17, 2019, issued to the appellant, a disabled person, remains valid and subsisting despite a subsequent change in policy, considering the car was not delivered by the dealer and the delay was not attributable to the appellant? The appellant argued that the original GST concession certificate did not stipulate any time limit. He contended that the car dealer caused a delay in delivery, and there was no willful default or inordinate delay on his part. Therefore, the certificate should be considered valid. The revenue (Union of India) argued that due to a change in policy, the appellant was no longer entitled to the benefit. They contended that the appellant ought to have availed the benefit in July 2019, before the issuance of the subsequent notification.