9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 135 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRejection of benefits/incentives admissible under the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy 2011 - rejection on grounds that their proposal does not have the approval of the Competent Authority - HELD THAT - The entire gamut of arguments revolves around the bogie raised by the respondent Industries department through the Director Industries as regarding lack of approval to the proposals of the petitioners for grant of incentives under the Industrial Policy 2011 by the Competent Authority which according to the respondent authorities in the Industries department would be the Head of the Government as manifest from their stand present at paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit which I have reproduced above and which understanding of the Industries department is in view of the stipulations present at paragraph 2.2 of the Notification No.128 dated 16.01.2006 issued under the Industrial Policy 2006 - The fallacy in the objections raised and the absolute lack of foundation for obstructing the incentives admissible to these petitioners under the Industrial Policy 2011 can be understood by the circumstances discussed hereinafter which is borne from the records of the proceedings. Where the Industrial Policy 2011 itself is providing for the manner of consideration and disposal of the claims raised by the industrial units and is followed by a series of resolutions taken and orders passed by the State Government in its Industries department as demonstrated above and where there is no dispute that the proposals of these petitioners have the sanction of the Competent Authority under the Industrial Policy 2011 as manifest from the enclosures to the respective writ petitions and which stands noted in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners where was the occasion for the Director Industries to put a spanner by raising a bogie of nongrant of approval by the Competent Authority in reference to Clause 2.2 of the resolution dated 16.01.2006 which confirmingly was issued to implement the Industrial Policy 2006 and has not been saved by the Industrial Policy 2011 . In view of the legal position so settled by the Supreme Court the orders passed by the Director Industries impugned in the respective writ petitions are rendered whimsical lacking application of mind and bereft of reasons. It is rather unfortunate that even when the respondents do not adversely comment on the eligibility of the petitioners to draw incentive under the Industrial Policy 2011 it is simply by raising a bogie of lack of approval by the Competent Authority that they seek to deprive the benefits to these petitioners even when there is no contest on the approval granted by the State Investment Promotion Board in terms of Clause 14 of the Industrial Policy 2011 to these petitioners. State Government in its Industries department and the Commercial Taxes department directed to ensure that every incentive to which the 3 petitioners are found entitled under the Industrial Policy 2011 shall be accorded to them within a maximum period of 3 months from today without either raising technicalities of approval or on the issue of change in payment procedure as raised by the Commercial Taxes department for in my opinion the two arms of the State Government have to act within the stipulation present in Industrial Policy 2011 for according benefits to these petitioners and not allow to these petitioners to either run around the corridors of the respective department or to approach this Court again specially where their admissibility to the incentives is not in question. Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of claims for benefits/incentives under the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011. 2. Eligibility for VAT reimbursement and other subsidies. 3. Requirement of approval from the Competent Authority. 4. Discrepancy between the Industrial Policy, 2011 and the resolution dated 16.01.2006. 5. Application of the principle of promissory estoppel. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of Claims for Benefits/Incentives under the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011: The petitioners filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the rejection of their claims for benefits under the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011. The Director, Industries, Bihar, Patna rejected these claims on the grounds that the proposals did not have the approval of the Competent Authority. The Court noted that the grievances of the petitioners were common and decided to dispose of the writ petitions analogously. 2. Eligibility for VAT Reimbursement and Other Subsidies: The petitioners sought directions to restore VAT reimbursement, declare the discontinuation of VAT reimbursement illegal, and grant other subsidies promised under the Industrial Policy, 2011. The petitioners had submitted all necessary documentation and had been issued Eligibility Certificates confirming their entitlement to VAT reimbursement and other subsidies. Despite this, the reimbursement was abruptly stopped, and the petitioners were informed that their claims were rejected due to the lack of approval from the Competent Authority. 3. Requirement of Approval from the Competent Authority: The Court examined the argument that the term "Competent Authority" was not defined in the Industrial Policy, 2011. The policy provided for a committee chaired by the Principal Secretary, Industries, to clarify and provide solutions for effective implementation. The Court found that the objections raised by the Industries department, citing the lack of approval from the Competent Authority, were unfounded. The approval granted by the State Investment Promotion Board and the subsequent issuance of Eligibility Certificates were deemed sufficient. 4. Discrepancy between the Industrial Policy, 2011 and the Resolution Dated 16.01.2006: The Industries department relied on Clause 2.2 of the resolution dated 16.01.2006, which required approval from the Chief Minister/Governor for projects involving significant investments. The Court noted that the Industrial Policy, 2011 was framed upon review of the Industrial Policy, 2006, and introduced fresh stipulations. The Court held that the reliance on the 2006 resolution was misplaced, as it was superseded by the 2011 policy. The resolutions and orders issued under the 2011 policy confirmed the approval process and the role of the Competent Authority. 5. Application of the Principle of Promissory Estoppel: The Court emphasized that the State cannot retract from its promise made under the Industrial Policy, 2011. The petitioners had made investments based on the promises of incentives, and their eligibility was not in dispute. The Court referred to the principle of promissory estoppel, as laid down in various judgments, including the case of M/s Suprabhat Steel Ltd. The Court concluded that the rejection of the petitioners' claims was whimsical, lacked application of mind, and was bereft of reasons. Conclusion: The Court quashed the orders rejecting the petitioners' claims for incentives under the Industrial Policy, 2011. It directed the State Government in its Industries department and the Commercial Taxes department to ensure that all incentives to which the petitioners were entitled under the policy be accorded within three months. The Court emphasized that the two arms of the State Government must act within the stipulations of the Industrial Policy, 2011, and not allow the petitioners to face further litigation or bureaucratic hurdles. The writ petitions were allowed with these directions.
|
