SC Dismisses SLP | Name or GST Change Not Ground to Deny BSS

Case Deatails: Union of India vs. Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. - [2025] 177 taxmann.com 356 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
• S. Dwarakanath, A.S.G., Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv., Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, B.K. Satija, Aadya Jha, Shyam Gopal, Pratyush Srivistava, Sarthak Karol, Rajat Vaishnav, Prabhakar Yadav and Mudit Bansal, Advs. for the Petitioner.
•  Sujit Ghosh, Mukul Rohatgi, Chander Uday Singh, Sr. Advs., Ajay Bhargava, Mayank Jain, Marmik Kamdar, Omar Ahmad, Arun Siwach, Ishan Gaur, Vikram Shah, Ms. Priyanka Mitra, Ritik Kumar Rath, Ms. Vidhi Saxena and Vikash Kumar Jha, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee operated manufacturing units and had been availing tax benefits under Notification No. 20/2007-CE, dated 25-04-2007, which provided area-based excise duty exemptions. With the introduction of GST on 01-07-2017, these benefits were rescinded, and the Budgetary Support Scheme (BSS) was introduced to provide financial support to eligible units for the residual period. The assessee’s units changed their names and applied for fresh Unique IDs under BSS, but the applications were initially denied. The Single Judge of the High Court had earlier denied BSS benefits on the ground of name/GST registration changes. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court held that procedural changes such as name changes or obtaining a new GST registration do not alter the fundamental eligibility of units under BSS. Aggrieved by this decision, the Department filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court.

SC Held

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that since the assessee’s units were operational, producing specified goods, and fulfilling the eligibility criteria under BSS before the GST regime, procedural changes like name changes or obtaining new GST registrations did not affect the fundamental eligibility of the units. The Court observed that the intent of BSS was to provide support to units affected by the transition to GST, not to their owners, and that disqualifying units on procedural grounds would be inconsistent with legislative intent. Consequently, the SLP filed by the Department was dismissed, upholding the Division Bench’s ruling in favour of the assessee.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. v. Union of India [2024] 169 taxmann.com 341 (SIKKIM)/[2025] 93 GSTL 331 (SIKKIM)/[2025] 108 GST 193 (SIKKIM) (Para 5) – SLP dismissed.