GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The rejection of the petitioner's claim for budgetary support for the period July-September, 2017 even while its claim for October, 2017 to June, 2018 was allowed under the 'Scheme of budgetary support under Goods and Services Tax Regime' to the units located in States of Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and North East including Sikkim dtd. 5/10/2017 (the Budgetary Support Scheme) has led to the present litigation.

(2.) The question which seeks determination in the present writ petition is whether the budgetary support claimed by the petitioner for the month of July 2017 and August 2017 separately in their initial applications ought to have been favourably considered by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax (respondent no.3) although as per the respondent no.3 the Budgetary Support Scheme envisaged working it out on a quarterly basis on claims to be filed on quarterly basis.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a violation of principles of natural justice as the same has been passed without granting any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The Budgetary Support Scheme provides the manner in which the claims can be made and determined. The initial orders of rejection passed by the respondent no. 3 had been set aside by this Court and thereafter, the claims of the petitioner were re-examined. Pursuant thereto out of the four claims made by the petitioner for four quarters, three claims were accepted and budgetary support granted. The petitioner has no grievance against non grant of opportunity of hearing for those quarters for which their claims were accepted and budgetary support granted. In spite of the petitioner having not fulfilled the requirement of the Budgetary Support Scheme to make their claims for the quarter opportunity was granted to them to resubmit their applications for budgetary support. Pursuant thereto the petitioner claims to have submitted fresh applications for budgetary support for the four quarters out of which budgetary support was granted for three quarters. In the circumstances this Court is of the view that there has been no violation of principles of natural justice.