2022 (12) TMI 328 - HC - Customs

West Bengal Industrial Promotion Assistance to Industrial Enterprises (scheme) - Rejection of application for granting the incentive in respect of fourth quarter up to 31.10.2012 - denial of grant of benefit on the ground that the form was filed well beyond the period fixed in the scheme - HELD THAT - The conclusion arrived at by the learned Writ Court that the claim of the appellant was barred by latches is on account of the correct facts not been placed before the Court. At the first instance, when we heard the matter we were also of the opinion that the claim made by the appellant was a stale claim as it pertained to the quarter ending October 2012. However, after carefully going through the facts we found that the claim made by the appellant for the remaining quarters for the year 2012 was sanctioned and paid only in the year 2016. The appellant s case is that during 2016, when he had received the payment for three quarters and did not receive the payment for the quarter ending 30.06.2012. Once we are steer clear of this issue, the next aspect which we have to see is as to whether the application filed by the appellant in the manual format could have been accepted though filed beyond the period of four months stipulated under the scheme. In the absence of any power conferred on the authority to entertain an application beyond the period stipulated, we will be required to examine as to whether the discretion vested in this court under Article 226 could be exercised in the given facts and circumstances - Exercise of discretion by the authority concerned in such a matter should be in a manner to promote the purpose for which the scheme was introduced and not to the contrary. The purpose of the scheme as spelt out is for encouraging manufacturing activities expansion etc. which would go to generate direct and indirect employment in the state. Thus, any interpretation which is given which will stultify the objects of the schemes has to be frowned upon. The learned Government Counsel submitted that earlier the appellant had filed the writ petition which was affirmed on 13.02.2017 but there after the appellant did not pursue the said writ petition and it is only in the year 2019, the appellant had filed the present writ petition. It is not clear as to why the petitioner or the erstwhile counsel did not pursue the matter - the bonafides of the appellant have not been doubted by the respondents, the eligibility is also not in dispute and if that be a factual position on account of a technical ground such incentive or benefit extended by the Government should not be denied. The appeal is allowed the order passed in the writ petition is set aside - the respondent authority is directed to take into consideration the manual form submitted by the appellant on 04.11.2012 and grant the admissible incentive to the appellant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the server copy of this order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against the rejection of incentive application for a specific quarter under a government scheme.
2. Dismissal of writ petition based on delay and laches.
3. Absence of violation of natural justice principles and perversity in the authority's action.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a challenge against the rejection of an incentive application for a quarter under the West Bengal Industrial Promotion Assistance scheme. The appellant failed to file the prescribed form by the due date due to alleged lack of internet connectivity. The authority rejected the application based on the delay. The High Court found that the appellant's claim was not barred by laches as payments for other quarters were sanctioned and paid only in 2016, and the appellant approached the authority promptly for the outstanding quarter. The Court emphasized that discretion under Article 226 could be exercised to consider deserving cases, as the scheme itself allowed for extensions in deserving circumstances to promote the scheme's purpose of encouraging manufacturing activities and generating employment.

2. The writ petition was dismissed by the lower court citing delay and laches as the appellant waited until 2019 to file the petition. However, the High Court noted that the delay was not unjustified as the appellant promptly pursued the matter once they realized the benefit for the specific quarter had not been granted. The Court held that the delay should not penalize the appellant, especially when the bonafides were not in question, and the eligibility criteria were met. The Court emphasized that technical grounds should not be used to deny legitimate benefits under the scheme.

3. The High Court found that there was no violation of natural justice principles or perversity in the authority's action, warranting relief for the appellant. The Court directed the respondent authority to consider the manual form submitted by the appellant and grant the admissible incentive expeditiously, emphasizing the importance of promoting the scheme's objectives without unnecessary hindrances. The appeal was allowed, and the writ petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and directing timely consideration of the appellant's application.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved and the High Court's comprehensive reasoning in addressing each issue, ensuring a thorough understanding of the legal aspects and conclusions reached in the case.