9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants S. Ganesh, Senior Advocate with U.A. Rana and Ramit Mehta for the respondents JUDGMENT We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length on the prayer for interim relief and have perused the material placed on record. This order being related only to the prayer for interim relief, we do not propose to dilate much on the factual and legal aspects involved in the matter. Suffice it shall be to take note of, in brief, the relevant background aspects. This appeal is directed against the order dated October 11, 2011 (Shree Cement Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [2012] 49 VST 483 (Raj)) as passed in CWP No. 4790 of 2009 whereby the learned single judge of this court has allowed the writ petition filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and upheld the claim made by the writ petitioner-company, for grant of increased subsidy at 75 per cent of the additional tax liability, instead of 50 per cent as allowed earlier. The matter relates to Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme, 2003 ( the Scheme / the Scheme of 2003 ) as introduced on July 28, 2003. Clause 7 of the Scheme provides for capital investment subsidy that has been bifurcated into different components like ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id two revision petitions were accepted by the State Government on March 31, 2009 and while quashing the earlier decisions, the SLSC was directed to consider the matter afresh. Aggrieved of the said order dated March 31, 2009 and other orders/notifications operating to its prejudice, the petitioner- company preferred the writ petition wherefrom has arisen this intra-court appeal. Shorn of other details, suffice is to notice for the present purpose that the learned single judge agreed with the contentions urged on behalf of the writ petitioners; and held that the petitioner-company had satisfied all the conditions for binding the State for grant of increased subsidy at 75 per cent. The learned single judge, inter alia, said (page 545 in 49 VST), 49. Consequently, this court is of the firm and clear opinion that the petitioner-company satisfied all the conditions for binding down the respondent-State by the assurance and promise of increased subsidy of 75 per cent of additional tax liability for entire period of seven years especially in view of the fact that SLSC after being duly aware of the withdrawal of notification dated April 28, 2006 granted such benefit and even the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he tune of ₹ 116.79 crores was concerned, the same had been released in favour of the petitioner-company as referred in the documents placed on record as annexure A1 with the additional affidavit dated December 20, 2011. The learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, though did not dispute issuance of such orders (annexure A/ 1), but submitted that the methodology sought to be adopted by the State, of merely making book entries in relation to the aforesaid amount, which was indisputably payable to the petitioner-company but withheld since the month of May 2008, would be unfair and harsh to the company who may not be able to avail of the amount of arrears of subsidy and its availability would be spread over for a long period, practically putting at naught the advantage available to the petitioner. However, on the queries of the court regarding the methods of accounting and payment, the learned counsel for the parties submitted that they shall be placing on record the relevant submissions with necessary documents to make the position clear. The learned counsel for the parties have filed the necessary submissions and were heard further in the matter yesterday, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for the respondents emphasised, this amount of ₹ 116.79 crores ought to be ordered to be released in cash immediately or at the most in three monthly instalments. The learned counsel submitted that there is no equity in favour of the appellants so far this undisputed entitlement of 50 per cent subsidy is concerned. Rejoining on the submissions, the learned Advocate-General contended that the methodology of payment of subsidy has always been of adjust ment against the tax liability and no payment had ever been made in cash in regard to this subsidy and, therefore, the writ petitioner is not entitled to seek any cash payment towards subsidy. After having given our anxious consideration to the entire matter, while we are clearly of opinion that so far the operative portion of the impugned order whereby the petitioner has been held entitled to the increased subsidy at 75 per cent under the notification dated December 2, 2005 and the respondents have been directed to release the arrears of such additional subsidy and allow set-off against additional tax liability (as contained in paragraph 45 of the impugned order) is concerned, the same deserves to be stayed during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
