Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017—Promissory Estoppel—The Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing of two wheels in the state of Uttarakhand. In pre-GST era, they were availing the benefit of exemption Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 (Area based exemption Notification) and were exempted from payment of Excise duty. After Notification No. 21/2017-CE, all exemptions under Notification No. 50/2003-CE were rescinded, as such, all beneficial incentives granted to the petitioner, ceased to continue w.e.f. 01.07.2017. Thereafter, the Government notified the Budgetary Support Scheme and provided reimbursement of 58% of CGST and 29% of IGST, in lieu of exemption provided under exemption notification. The petitioner preferred the petition for grant of complete exemption by way of reimbursement of CGST and IGST for the residual period of exemption notification.

Held that:-The Hon’ble High Court held that the plea of the promissory estoppels can not be enforced against an act done in accordance with the statutory provisions of law. In absence of any challenge by the petitioner to the rescission of the said notification, which granted exemption or to the vires of the proviso to Section 174(2)( c) of the Act, no plea of promissory estoppels is maintainable. — Hero Motocorp Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2020] 22 TAXLOK.COM 001 (Delhi)