Shri.C.Radhakrishna Shastry vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Sri. C. Radhakrishna Shastry, who suffers from 55% hearing impairment, sought to avail concessional GST rates for purchasing a car. He was issued a Disability Certificate in July 2019, based on an Office Order dated 01.05.2018 by the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises. This order provided guidelines for obtaining such certificates to avail concessional GST rates notified by the Ministry of Finance. However, the petitioner could not purchase the vehicle immediately due to non-availability with the dealer. Subsequently, on 24.10.2019, the Ministry of Heavy Industries issued revised guidelines introducing restrictions on vehicle categories, specifying that only persons with orthopaedic physical disability could apply, and limiting the certificate's validity to three months from issuance, requiring vehicle purchase within this period. The petitioner's certificate was issued prior to these revised guidelines.

Held

The Court held that while tax laws must be applied prospectively, the petitioner could not rely on this principle in the present case. The petitioner should have availed the benefit of the certificate issued in July 2019 before the subsequent order dated 24.10.2019 came into effect. The Court found that the petitioner's delay in purchasing the vehicle, for personal reasons, could not lead to the certificate being construed as valid beyond the period stipulated in the subsequent guidelines. The subsequent guidelines clearly state that a certificate is valid for three months from the date of issuance, and this policy must prevail. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that his certificate should remain valid notwithstanding the subsequent guidelines. If eligible, the petitioner must secure a fresh certificate under the current guidelines. The Court found no reason for interference and dismissed the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the GST concession certificate dated 17.07.2019, issued to the petitioner, remains valid and subsisting notwithstanding the subsequent guidelines issued by the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises on 24.10.2019, thereby entitling the petitioner to avail the concession under the earlier certificate? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the subsequent guidelines of 24.10.2019 cannot eclipse the certificate issued in July 2019 under the earlier guidelines of 01.05.2018, as the subsequent order does not explicitly state that previously issued certificates would lapse. Furthermore, tax-related laws should be applied prospectively, and therefore, the new restrictions should not invalidate his existing certificate. The petitioner also sought directions for the Assistant Regional Transport Officer to register the vehicle under concessional road tax as an 'invalid carriage'. Revenue's contention: The learned standing counsel for the first respondent submitted that the guidelines issued by the Department of Heavy Industries, pursuant to the Ministry of Finance notification and GST Council decisions, must prevail. While the GST Council decides eligibility for concessional rates as a physically handicapped person, the Department of Heavy Industries determines eligibility for the certificate, its validity period, and the class of vehicles eligible for concessions.