Case Title: Arun Goel v. Union of India & Anr.
Court: High Court of Delhi
Petition No.: W.P.(C) 15358/2023 & CM Appl. 61616/2023
Date of Judgment: 07.02.2024
Category: Refund / Concessional GST rate for persons with disabilities
Relevant Provisions: GST Concession Notification 01.05.2018; Amendment Notification 30.09.2019; Revised Policy Guidelines 24.10.2019
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva & Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Facts (Paras 1–8)

The petitioner, a person with disability, applied on 01.07.2019 seeking a GST Concession Certificate for purchase of a vehicle, under the 2018 GST concessional rate policy. His application was returned on 26.07.2019 citing lack of clarity in the doctor’s seal and absence of an orthopedic signature. Meanwhile, he purchased and registered a Ciaz Smart Hybrid Vehicle on 22.07.2019, classified as an “invalid carriage.”

He re-submitted a fresh application on 17.08.2019, which was returned on 24.10.2019 on the ground that the policy had been revised, and he was required to apply afresh under the updated 2019 guidelines. The respondents justified this by referencing the 30.09.2019 amendment to the CGST Schedule, following which revised guidelines were issued on 24.10.2019. The petitioner contended that the 2019 policy could not apply retroactively to applications filed when the 2018 policy was operative.

Question Before the Court (Paras 1, 7, 8)

Whether an applicant who applied for concessional GST benefits before the 2019 policy amendment can be compelled to comply with the revised guidelines, or whether his entitlement must be adjudicated strictly under the 2018 policy applicable at the time of application.

Observations of the Court (Paras 9–14)

The Court categorically rejected the respondents’ position. It held that:

• The petitioner first applied on 01.07.2019 when the 2018 policy was the only operative framework.
• The re-application on 17.08.2019 also pre-dated both the Notification dated 30.09.2019 and the revised guidelines dated 24.10.2019.
• Therefore, the petitioner’s application was legally required to be considered only under the 2018 policy.
• Under the 2018 guidelines, there was no restriction relating to vehicle length or timing of purchase, nor was there a mandatory requirement to obtain an entitlement certificate before purchase—conditions introduced only in 2019.
• The Court also noted that authorities had granted similar refunds for pre-2019 applicants, undermining the respondents’ stand.
• The rejection dated 05.06.2023, wherein the respondents refused to follow the order of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities dated 06.04.2023, was held to be unsustainable in law.

Judgment / Final Order (Paras 15–16)

The High Court quashed the order dated 05.06.2023 as illegal. It directed that:

1. The petitioner’s application dated 17.08.2019 shall be considered strictly under the 2018 policy.

2. If found eligible, the respondents shall issue the concessional GST certificate.

3. The petitioner shall be refunded the excess GST collected on the vehicle purchase.

4. The entire exercise must be completed within four weeks.

Summary of Cases Referred (Tabular Form)

(The judgment does not refer to external precedent cases; all reasoning is internal to the facts and statutory amendments. Hence, the table records the internal administrative references.)

Between Fine Lines – Practical Takeaways for Trade & Industry

The judgment reinforces that policy amendments under GST cannot operate retrospectively to the detriment of taxpayers. Any application filed under an existing concessional regime must be adjudicated under the policy prevailing at the time of application, irrespective of subsequent amendments. Authorities cannot compel taxpayers to comply with later guidelines, nor can benefits be denied on grounds introduced after submission. This decision strengthens predictability and safeguards legitimate expectations in GST administrative processes.

Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”