sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1641266598538534915?t=FeIwEP-gxZxiTXbnrCen2w&s=08 [3/30, 08:00] sekarreporter1: [3/30, 07:58] sekarreporter1: *PEARLS OF WISDOM* *[Hon’ble Justices B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna]* The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hero Motocorp Limited vs. Union of India *[(2023) 1 SCC 386]* has held that since proviso to Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 provides that any tax exemption granted
[3/30, 08:00] sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1641266598538534915?t=FeIwEP-gxZxiTXbnrCen2w&s=08
[3/30, 08:00] sekarreporter1: [3/30, 07:58] sekarreporter1: *PEARLS OF WISDOM*
*[Hon’ble Justices B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna]*
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hero Motocorp Limited vs. Union of India *[(2023) 1 SCC 386]* has held that since proviso to Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 provides that any tax exemption granted as an incentive against investment, shall not continue as a privilege if the said notification is rescinded on or after the appointed day namely 01.07.2017. Admittedly, vide notification No. 21/2017, dated 18.07.2017, various earlier area-based exemption notification have been rescinded. It is thus clear that the benefit which was granted under 2003 notification stands rescinded in view of the notification issued under the proviso to Clause (c) of sub-section 2 of Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017.
Relying on the Constitution Bench decisions in M. Ramanatha Pillai vs. State of Kerala [(1973) 2 SCC 650]; State of Kerala vs. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg (Wvg) Co. Ltd. [(1973) 2 SCC 713] and a Full Judge Bench decision in Excise Commissioner Vs. Ram Kumar [(1976) 3 SCC 540], the Court has held that the plea of promissory estoppel would not be available against the exercise of the legislative functions of the State.
(2) The doctrine cannot be invoked for preventing the Government from discharging its functions under the law.
(3) The doctrine cannot be used to compel the Government or a public authority to carry out a representation or promise which is contrary to law.
(4) The doctrine of promissory estoppel being an equitable doctrine, it must yield, when the equity so requires.
(5) Where the change of policy is in the larger public interest, the State cannot be prevented from withdrawing an incentive which it has granted through an earlier notification.
In view of the change in the statutory regime itself on account of the GST Act, being introduced, it will not be correct to hold the Union bound by the representation made by it, i.e. the said O.M. of 2003.
[3/30, 07:58] sekarreporter1: .
By k selvaraj mhc advocate
