2002 (4) TMI 911 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to assistance under the West Bengal Industrial Promotion (Assistance to Industrial Unit) Scheme, 1994.
2. Interpretation of "edible rice bran oil" under the said scheme.
3. Compliance with principles of natural justice in the decision-making process.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to assistance under the West Bengal Industrial Promotion (Assistance to Industrial Unit) Scheme, 1994:

The petitioner challenged the rejection of their application for assistance under the West Bengal Industrial Promotion (Assistance to Industrial Unit) Scheme, 1994. The scheme, introduced by the Government of West Bengal on May 27, 1994, aimed to provide financial assistance to manufacturing units in the state facing an acute financial crisis. The assistance was applicable to units manufacturing items listed in Schedule A or Schedule B of the scheme. The petitioner argued that their product, rice bran oil raw grade-I, should be considered "edible rice bran oil" as listed in Schedule A, thus entitling them to the assistance.

2. Interpretation of "edible rice bran oil" under the said scheme:

The core issue was whether the petitioner's product, rice bran oil raw grade-I, qualified as "edible rice bran oil" under the scheme. The authorities rejected the petitioner's claim, arguing that the product was not fit for human consumption without further processing, and therefore did not meet the definition of "edible rice bran oil." The petitioner contested this interpretation, providing evidence that their product was known in the trade as "edible rice bran oil" and was used in the manufacture of vanaspati. The court noted that the scheme's objective was to assist existing industries in financial crisis and that the interpretation should consider the trade and commercial understanding of the term "edible rice bran oil," rather than relying solely on dictionary definitions.

3. Compliance with principles of natural justice in the decision-making process:

The court found that the decision-making process was flawed due to a failure in natural justice. The authorities had relied on a report dated January 5, 1999, which was not disclosed to the petitioner before the hearing. This denied the petitioner an opportunity to contest the contents of the report, thus violating principles of fairness and natural justice. The court emphasized that any quasi-judicial proceeding must ensure that all relevant materials are disclosed to the parties involved, allowing them to respond adequately.

Conclusion:

The court quashed the impugned order dated January 25, 1999, and remanded the matter back to the authorities for reconsideration. The authorities were instructed to provide notice to the parties, allow the petitioner to submit additional representations, and ensure that all materials are disclosed and considered during the hearing. The court mandated that the decision be made within three months, ensuring a fair and just process. The writ petition was allowed, but no order as to costs was made.