9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the domain of the Government; and the Government is entitled to frame a particular policy and to alter the same, as deemed fit and proper. As to whether the cement industry was to be granted 75% subsidy under RIPS-2003 or not was definitely a matter of the policy of the Government; and when such a policy was not in existence at the time of consideration of the application of the Appellant, no benefit could have been claimed under a non-existent policy. The Additional Chief Secretary has rightly held that SLSC's decision dated 17.03.2011 and its repeat decision dated 24.11.2011 had been erroneous on the very fundamentals where it was assumed as if BIDI had already sanctioned 75% subsidy to the company. The High Court has also independently examined the entire matter in requisite details and we are unable to find any infirmity when the High Court has held that the Appellant company was only entitled to subsidy to the extent of 50% of the tax payable and deposited and not to the extent of 75%. SLSC's decision of granting 75% subsidy to the Appellant - HELD THAT:- The possibility of so called other view (the wrong one) could arise only if SLSC is held entitled to simply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... powers of revision by the State Government under Clause 13 - HELD THAT:- The initial decision of SLSC was entirely erroneous and cannot be said to be a possible view of the matter. Coupled with that, the said decision was directly prejudicial to the interest of revenue where the State exchequer was to part with extra 25% of the tax amount received or receivable from the Appellant. As noticed, the learned ACS, while passing the order dated 12.03.2008 in exercise of such power of revision under Clause 13 of the Scheme, has meticulously examined the entire material and has recorded each and every finding with due regard to the dealings of the parties and the provisions of Scheme as applicable. The exercise of power of revision as per Clause 13 of the Scheme remains unexceptionable in the present case. Effect of availing 75% subsidy for 7 years - HELD THAT:- The suggestion that already availed benefit cannot be withdrawn turn out to be hollow and baseless because whatever was obtained by the Appellant, beyond its entitlement, had only been based on an erroneous and unauthorised decision of SLSC. In any case, RIPS-2003 being a matter of concession in the form of subsidy, securing an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RIPS-2003. However, and at the same time, when the Appellant company had obtained undue advantage in monetary terms by availing 25% extra subsidy; and had given undertaking to refund any excessive benefit with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, in our view, the Appellant company remains liable to refund the excess amount together with interest at the rate agreed upon, i.e., 12% per annum. The impugned order of the High Court dated 11.01.2019, upholding the order dated 12.03.2018 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur is affirmed but with the modification that the Respondents shall be entitled to recover interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of availing of excessive subsidy (25%) by the Appellants until payment/recovery - appeal allowed in part. - Civil Appeal No. 2773 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 2252 of 2019) - - - Dated:- 17-7-2020 - A. M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. U.A. Rana, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Mehta, Adv. M/S. Gagrat And Co, AOR For the Respondent : Mr. Irshad Ahmad, AOR JUDGMENT Dinesh Maheshwari, J. PRELIMINARY AND BRIEF OUTLINE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amount of subsidy availed in excess of 50% of the payable and deposited tax together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 3. Put in a nutshell, case of the Appellant is that the subsidy in question, to the extent of 75% of tax payable and deposited, was availed by it under the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme-2003 only in terms of and pursuant to: (a) the decision taken by the high-powered Board of Infrastructure Development and Investment Institution 8 on 01.04.2006; (b) the Memorandum of Understanding 9 entered with the State Government on 30.11.2007; and (c) the Entitlement Certificates issued by SLSC on 29.04.2011 and 24.11.2011. Therefore, according to the Appellant, there was no occasion for the ACS to invoke Clause 13 of the Scheme; and the Appellant can neither be forced to repay the amount of subsidy already availed of nor could any interest be charged. Per contra, stand of the Respondents is that the decision of BIDI dated 01.04.2006 is of no good for the Appellant because the package referred therein was withdrawn and the corresponding provisions in the Scheme were deleted on 28.04.2006; and the benefits under the deleted provisions could have been gra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion that such units shall commence commercial production/operations owing to such investment during the operative period of the Scheme. 5.2. Some of the expressions and phrases used in the text of the Scheme had been defined in Clause 4 thereof. Then, the eligibility for availing Capital Investment Subsidy had been provided in Clause 5 of the Scheme as follows13: 5. ELIGIBILITY: The benefits Capital Investment subsidy as per Clause 7 and exemptions as per Clause 8 under the Scheme shall be available to all units, other than those covered in the list of ineligible units, subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions: (i) the term loan sanctioned by the State/Central financial institution(s)/International Financial Institution/Corporation and/or Scheduled Commercial Bank(s) including cooperative Bank(s), has been sanctioned and utilized during the operative period of the Scheme; Provided that this condition shall not apply for the benefits pertaining to purchase/use of land. (ii) the unit shall have a minimum borrowing for investment of ₹ 10 lacs or having an investment of at least ₹ 10 lacs in land and/or building calculated on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chairman b) Secretary, Finance (Rev.) or his representative not below the rank of Deputy Secretary Member c) Commissioner, Commercial Taxes or his representative not below the rank of Additional commissioner. Member d) CMD, RFC or his Representative, not below the rank of ED Member e) MD, RIICO or his Representative, not below the rank of ED Member f) Commissioner, Industries member- Secretary 2. Investment up to ₹ 10.00 cores District Level Screening Committee (DLSC) consisting of the following: a) District Collector Chairman b) Concerned Branch Manager of RFC in the District Member c) Concerned Senior Regional Manager/ Regional Manager of RIICO in the District. Member d) Deputy/ Asstt. Commissioner, Commercial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... odernization/Expansion, the amount of Capital Investment Subsidy shall be subject to maximum of fifty percent of the amount of the Central Sales Tax and VAT payable or deposited by the unit on its additional capacity, so created over and above the installed capacity before Expansion/Modernization. illustration: Installed capacity of unit 'A' before expansion/Modernization was 100 tons and after expansion it becomes 150 tons but the unit 'A' produce 140 tons. Tax paid on (140 tons-100 tons) = 40 tons shall qualify for calculation of Capital Investment Subsidy. For diversification the amount of Capital Investment subsidy shall be subject to a maximum of fifty percent of the amount of Central Sales Tax and VAT payable or deposited by the unit over and above the highest tax payable or deposited whichever is higher, in any of the three immediately preceding years. provided that the maximum limit of fifty percent prescribed under Clause 7(i)(a) and Clause 7(i)(b) may be raised by the BIDI (Board of Infrastructure Development Investment Promotion, Government or Rajasthan) to sixty percent in such cases where the investment exceed ₹ 100 crores but ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent) and first payment of wage/employment in case of Capital Investment Subsidy (wage component) if the 25% of its manpower is local. Provided that for the new investments in the units being established in Special Economic Zones located entirely in backward and rural areas (as may be specified by the State Government by an order), the period of seven years shall stand raised to ten years. Provided further that the investment made or committed before 22.05.2008 or under MOU signed during Resurgent Rajasthan Summit for both new cement unit or under expansion, having capacity more than 200 tons per day, shall be eligible for Capital Investment Subsidy under this Clause on the condition that such unit shall start commercial production by 31.03.2011.17 Captive Power Plant: The existing unit under expansion/modernization, investing in captive power plant shall qualify for Capital Investment Subsidy under this clause. (iv) Where a unit has claimed and/or is availing benefit of the Capital Investment Subsidy (Interest component) the Capital Investment Subsidy (Wage component), shall be available to the extent of twenty five percent of wages/salary paid by the investors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , SLSC to avail benefit under this scheme within 180 days of this amendment; 2. The unit shall start commercial production within 5 years of filing of application for option; and 3. The sum total of 75% subsidy shall be calculated in the following manner: (a) Subsidy of 45% of the Rajasthan Sales Tax or Value Added Tax and Central Sales Tax shall be allowed upfront on the basis of actual tax liability; and (b) The remaining subsidy to the extent of 30% of Rajasthan Sales Tax or Value Added Tax and Central Sales Tax liability shall be allowed in form of interest subsidy, wage/employment subsidy out of which interest subsidy shall be limited to 5% of the documented rate of interest and the amount actually paid as interest shall not include penal interest, and wage/employment subsidy. A unit not claiming any interest subsidy can claim wage/employment subsidy to the extent of 30%, subject to other conditions under this amendment. 4. The claim of subsidy shall be as per the provisions of this Scheme. (vii) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub clause(i) to (v) above, in case of investments for expansion of existing cement unit having investment exceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and after 28.04.2006, that is to reiterate that none of the types enumerated at Sl. No. 1 to 6 below, quality for benefits under deleted Sub-clause (vi) and (vii) of Clause 7 of RIPS-2003 on or after 28.04.2006. 1. Where the option was submitted before 28.04.2006 and benefits were also granted by SLSC before 28.04.2006. 2. Where the option was submitted before 28.04.2006 and benefits were granted by SLSC after 27.04.2006. 3. Where the option was submitted before 28.04.2006 and benefits had not been granted by SLSC, 4. Where the option was submitted after 27.04.2006 but within 180 days of 02.12.2005 and the benefits had not been granted by SLSC, 5. Where the option was submitted after 27.04.2006 but within 180 days of 02.12.2005 and the case has not been considered by SLSC, and 6. Where the option was submitted after 27.04.2006 but within 180 days of 02.12.2005 and the unit has still not applied for the benefits. 5.4.3. The aforementioned clarification was followed by the amendment bearing No. F.12(20)FD/Tax/2005-Pt dated 30.09.2008 whereby, the Government of Rajasthan inserted proviso to Sub-clause (iii) of Clause 7 of RIPS 2003 to the effect that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation, the same shall be communicated to the applicant within a week of the date of such decision. (v) The Assistant Commissioner/Commercial Taxes Officer of the area where the eligible unit is registered shall be the Nodal Officer to give effect to the decision of the Screening Committee. (vi) The units declared eligible for availing Capital Investment Subsidy under the Scheme, shall submit an application to the Assistant Commissioner/Commercial Taxes Officer for claiming the Capital Investment Subsidy who shall provide the Capital Investment Subsidy as per the order of the Government issued in this regard. (vii) The payment of Capital Investment Subsidy (Interest component) shall be made only for the period for which the unit deposits State and/or Central sales tax and/or and makes regular repayment of loan and interest due to the financial institution(s). Capital Investment Subsidy shall be disallowed for the period the unit defaults in depositing sales tax or defaults in regular repayment of loan or interest. It shall be restored on the recommendation of the Assistant Commissioner/Commercial Taxes Officer from the Commercial Taxes Department and the concerned Fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, conversion charges and other benefits under the Scheme shall comply with all statutory laws and Regulations. Non-compliance may result in cancellation/withdrawal of the benefits under the Scheme. (b) The unit availing Capital Investment Subsidy (Interest component) and/or Capital Investment Subsidy (Wage component) and availing exemption of luxury tax, electricity duty, mandi tax, entertainment tax, stamp duty, conversion charges and other benefits under the Scheme shall be subject to the conditions, procedures, instructions, clarifications, or amendments issued from time to time under the Scheme. (c) If any subsidy under any other scheme of Government of India or Government of Rajasthan is received by the unit in respect of interest payment, or as a wage/employment subsidy then the total Capital Investment Subsidy payable under the scheme shall be reduced to the extent of subsidy so received. Provided, that if a unit is availing interest subsidy benefit under Technology Upgradation Fund (TUF) scheme of Government of India, for textile sector, then it would be eligible to avail the benefit up to 2.5% of Capital Investment Subsidy (Interest component) under this s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cified by the State Government in its Administrative Reforms (Gr.3) Department by the order dated 15.01.2005 in the following terms: In superannuation of department's Order No. F.6(51)AR/Gr.3/96 dated 26th January, 1999, the Governor is pleased to re-structure the BOARD OF INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT INSTITUTION (BIDI) to the following members: 1. Chief Minister - Chairman 2. Industry Minister - Vice-Chairman 3. Planner Minister - Member 4. Energy Minister - Member 5. UDH Minister - Member 6. Chief Secretary - Member-Secretary *** *** *** 1. To consider and review schemes and provide directions for accelerating investment in to the State. 2. To consider these matters relating to investme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... measuring 5.02 sq. kms. was transferred to the company at the cost of ₹ 46.50 lakhs with the condition that the company shall put up the cement plant within a period of three years. However, this task of putting up the cement plant at Kotputli could not be accomplished within the expected time, perhaps due to various pending litigations. Be that as it may, after the aforesaid Sub-clauses (vi) and (vii) were added to Clause 7 of the Scheme w.e.f. 02.12.2005, the company made a request for grant of incentives; and this request was duly considered in 11th Pre-BIDI meeting held on 28.03.2006. 7.2.1. The relevant agenda proposal of the said 11th Pre-BIDI meeting 19 fairly gives insight into the nature of request made by the company, the views of the Finance Department as also Industries Minister and the recommendations of Pre-BIDI. Therefore, the same is reproduced in extenso as under: Request of the Company: The Company has requested for a customized package of incentives on the ground that this a Mega Project with an investment of more than ₹ 1000 crores. Details of the concessions/incentives sought by the Company are as follows: Sl. No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 400 crores, 100% exemption from Electricity duty is admissible on self generated energy in respect of investment in Captive power plant. If power is purchased from Grid (DISCOMs), the total financial implication over a period of 15 years will be ₹ 30.90 crores. 5. Subsidies will be subject to a maximum the total investment in the project i.e. ₹ 1200 crores. No such policy exists. In that case, the company is asking the total benefit up to the extent of ₹ 1200 crores. Views of the Finance Department The value of the enhanced incentives/exemptions will be approximately ₹ 1130 crores which would be almost equal to the cost of the plant being set up by the company (at a cost of ₹ 1200 crores). Finance Department is of the view that incentives/exemptions beyond RIPS-2003 should not be given. If further incentives/exemptions are granted, the 18 other companies which are operating within the State will face competitive price disadvantage. It would also be contrary to the declared policy of providing level playing field for all. Further, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : 250 Expected Date of Completion : March 2008 We request you to register the above in Rajasthan Investment Promotion Policy 2003 Scheme of sub Clause (vii) of Clause 7 vide Notification No. F.12(20)FD/Tax/05-Pt dated 2/12/2005. We also request that in case any special package of incentives is approved for any other similar cement plant, then the same may be granted to our aforesaid plant also. 7.5. However, before any decision was taken on the aforementioned application dated 26.04.2006, the State Government proceeded to delete the aforesaid Sub-clauses (vi) and (vii) of Clause 7 of RIPS-2003 by way of its amendment Notification No. F.12(63)FD/Tax/05 dated 28.04.2006. 7.6. The company felt distressed with the aforesaid amendment dated 28.04.2006 and deletion of Sub-clauses (vi) and (vii) of Clause 7 of the Scheme and hence, on 26.05.2006, its Group Executive President made a representation to the Chief Minister of Rajasthan, stating the steps taken by the company after submitting the option for availing benefit under the Notification dated 02.12.2005; and the setback likely to be caused to the investme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Rajasthan Investment Policy 2003 for investment of ₹ 1,000 crores and above. Both the above proposed plants are expected to contribute over ₹ 225 crores each to the exchequer substantial part of which will be shared by the State Government. In the present high growth environment of Indian economy, cement industry being one of the prominent infrastructure industry is providing support to other industries such retrogatory steps may affect the growth of the cement industry ultimately overall growth of the Indian economy. We sincerely request your goodself to reconsider withdraw the above notification dated 28th April 2006 which will also be in the natural justice as we have planned investments based on the notification dated 02nd December 2005. We hope that our request shall be considered favourably enabling us to take further steps for implementation of the proposed plants in a time bound manner. 7.6.1. It appears that the request so made by the company evoked only a pithily tight response from the State Government in the form of letter No. BIP/IP/DGM(NS)/61 dated 17.06.2006 of the Bureau of Investment Promotion, Rajasthan 20 , stating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the amendment dated 30.09.2008 of Sub-clause (iii) of Clause 7 of the Scheme were also referred and then, the applicant submitted as under: 6. ....In accordance with above amendment the Applicant Company is eligible for subsidy as investments have already been made of significant amount of ₹ 1,184.47 crores upto 30th April, 2008 (before 22.05.2008) and also signed the MOU during Resurgent Rajasthan Summit on dated 30th November, 2007 for setting up the 40 Lac MT/annum cement plants at Mohanpura, Tehsil Kotputli, Distt. Jaipur and the copy of the Memorandum of Understanding is enclosed herewith as Annexure-6. We are also enclosing herewith the certificate of Chartered Accountants certifying the investment of ₹ 1,184.47 crores up to 30th April, 2008 in Grasim Cement-Kotputli as Annexure-7. 7. That we have already filed the option under the notification dated 02.12.2005, within 180 days and also commenced the commercial production on 20.01.2020 i.e. within five years from the date of filing the option, investments were made of ₹ 1,661.88 crores i.e. more than ₹ 400 crores and have given the employment to 254 persons up to 31.12.2009 i.e. more than 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lier in many cases the State Level Screening Committee have on the basis of Capital Investment (Interest component) allowed eligibility. Therefore, in this case the unit is covered under the definition of term loan for seeking term loan from ECB Buyers Credit then unit should be given the benefit of eligibility of interest subsidy. On the basis of advise of the representative of finance department Secretary, Finance committee has take the decision that unit is for the time being allowed for the starting from the first date of commercial production, first VAT challan deposit date 5/2/2010 for 7 years capital investment subsidy (interest component) eligibility loan received from HDFC bank of 250 crore axis bank 200 crores means total 450/crore etc may be granted eligibility for term loan and already received ECB credit Buyers matters in consideration of earlier matters, matter may be referred to finance department. The eligibility certificate may be amended as per the decision of the Finance Department decision. Committee has also taken decision that unit may be allowed for Capital Investment (25 percent employment component) from 5/2/2010 the date of starting of comme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bility available on ₹ 450 crs. Term loan and 216.25 crs. ECB Credit Total 666.25 crs. only) @ 25% from 05.02.2010 Note: 1. In case of new units, the maximum amount of interest and wage/employment subsidy shall not exceed 75% of the State Sales Tax/VAT and the Central Sales Tax paid by the applicant dealer. 2. This certificate is liable to amendment/suspension/revocation, if obtained on misrepresentation or concealment of facts or by fraud or on breach of any of the terms and conditions, mentioned in the relevant notification. 3. This certificate shall be valid for a period of seven years from 05.02.2010. 4. This certificate may be revoked by the issuing authority in case the applicant violates any of the conditions of the Scheme or the certificate. 5. This Revised Entitlement Certificate is being issued superseding earlier Entitlement Certificate issued being No. 02/190 on 29.04.2011. (bold as in original) 7.13. It is not a matter of much dispute that the Appellant fully availed the benefit of 75% subsidy in terms of the Entitlement Certificate dated 24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le of Finance Department, therefore with regard to the order issued by the BIDI for increasing maximum limit of capital investment subsidy from 50% to 75% in these matters the requisite factual comments may be forwarded to the Finance Department at the earliest possible. 8.3. It appears that the aforesaid communication and its reminders from the Finance Department to the Industries Department remained unanswered for a long length of time.26 Ultimately, a reply dated 09.02.2017 was forwarded by the Member-Secretary, SLSC, which too was carrying certain typographical errors and hence, another reply was sent by the said Member-Secretary on 17.02.2017, seeking to furnish 'factual comments in respect of grant of capital investment subsidy upto 75%' to the Appellant in the Meeting dated 17.03.2011. Therein, the said Member-Secretary stated, inter alia, that perhaps the benefit was given on the basis of decision taken by BIDI. This communication dated 17.02.2017 has also been reproduced in the impugned order dated 12.03.2018 and the relevant passage thereof may be reproduced for ready reference as under27: Notably, in Clause 7(vi) of the Scheme provision was for cement u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which concludes that in Agenda Notes placed being SLSC being shown approval of 75% capital investment subsidy to these matters by the BIDI the SLSC has taken defective decision. In these matters decision of SLSC is defective and contrary to the revenue interest therefore it is necessary to again place the matters along with all facts and documents before SLSC. By the even number Letter dated 17.11.2011 of the Finance Department on seeking information of the order pertaining to extending subsidy limit up to 75% by BIDI your office has replied after lapse of more than 5 years. Need of fixing responsibility for such delay is also appeared. (sic) Take action accordingly and up date to the Finance Department. 9. In the above-noted background, the SLSC proceeded to re-examine the matter in its 20th meeting held on 22.05.2017. In the Minutes of this meeting dated 22.05.2017, the SLSC underscored the very same doubts as raised by the Finance Department on the purport and effect of the decision of BIDI and suggested for appropriate action under Clause 13 of RIPS-2003. The relevant part of this resolution of SLSC dated 22.05.2017 could also be usefully extracted as under28: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommendation may be sent to Finance Department and for fixing the responsibility action may be taken on file. In the last, thanks given to President the meeting is closed. Revision proceeding under Clause 13 of RIPS-2003: impugned order dated 12.03.2018 10. Following the aforesaid recommendation of SLSC, a notice bearing No. P12 (55) Fin/tax/2017-Part-I dated 10.07.2017 was issued to the Appellant by the State Government informing about the proposed action of the Finance Department under Clause 13 of RIPS-2003, because the decision taken by SLSC on 17.03.2011 was found to be erroneous and against the interest of revenue. The Appellant was called upon to enter into defence with relevant documents and evidences. 10.1. Having received the aforesaid notice dated 10.07.2017 from the State Government, the Appellant made an application under the Right to Information Act to obtain a copy of agenda note regarding item No. 13 in the minutes of meeting dated 01.04.2006 of BIDI and minutes of Pre-BIDI meeting dated 28.03.2006. After obtaining necessary documents, the Appellant submitted its objections and reply to the show cause notice, inter alia, to the effect that it had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f deposited tax from 50% limit to 75% limit as per first proviso to Clause 7(i)(a) and 7(i)(b) of the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme, 2003 (RIPS-2003) has been approved by the Board of Infrastructure Development and Investment Promotion (BIDI) in its meeting dated 01.04.20016 (sic) whereas no such order was passed by the Board of Infrastructure Development and Investment Promotion (BIDI) for increasing available capital investment subsidy from 50% limit to 75% of payable and deposited tax in view of provision of Clause 7(i)(a) and 7(i)(b) of Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme 2003 (RIPS-2003). ii) In furtherance to the decision taken under Agenda No. 13 of Meeting dated 17.3.2011 of State Level Screening Committee (SLSC) under Agenda No. 18 of in next meeting dated 17.10.2011 of State Level Screening Committee (SLSC) reference of capital investment subsidy up to 75% of total payable tax is also erroneous. iii) Decision taken under Agenda No. 13 of Meeting dated 17.3.2011 of State Level Screening Committee (SLSC) and in furtherance thereto reference of capital investment subsidy of 75% of total payable tax under Agenda No. 18 of in next meeting dated 17.10.2011 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... get capital investment subsidy as per provision of Clause 7(i)(a) of Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme, 2003 (RIPS-2003) to the extent of 50% of payable and deposited tax because no order has been passed by Board of Infrastructure Development and Investment Promotion (BIDI) for increasing capital investment subsidy as per provision of Clause 7(i)(a) and 7(i)(b) of Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme, 2003 (RIPS-2003) from 50% to 75% of the payable and deposited tax. ii) The Entitlement Certificate dated 29.04.2011 issued in furtherance to State Level Screening Committee (SLSC) Meeting dated 17.03.2011 and also Revised Entitlement Certificate dated 24.11.2011 issued in furtherance to Meeting dated 17.10.2011 of State Level Screening Committee (SLSC) are hereby cancelled and it is ordered to State Level Screening Committee (SLSC) to issue new Entitlement Certificate for investment subsidy up to 50% limit of total tax to Kotputli Cement Works Unit of the Company. iii) Disbursement officers of the Capital Investment Subsidy (Assessing Authority) is directed to calculate payable capital investment subsidy as per New Entitlement Certificate to be issued by the State Level ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by the company. It is also informed that in case the aforesaid amount of ₹ 33,14,71,610/- is not deposited till 31.05.2018 under the provisions of the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme 2003 then the said amount shall be recovered from the company as land revenue dues. The writ petition before the High Court: impugned order dated 11.01.2019 13. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.03.2018 as passed by the ACS in revision proceedings under Clause 13 of RIPS-2003; issuance of the Re-revised Entitlement Certificate; and the order dated 04.04.2018 of the ACS demanding the excess subsidy amounting to ₹ 15,96,37,794/- together with interest amount of ₹ 17,18,33,816/-, the Appellant preferred the writ petition, being W.P. No. 9090 of 2018, before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, challenging Clause 13 of RIPS-2003 as being arbitrary and unconstitutional as also seeking the relief of quashing the orders dated 12.03.2018, 02.04.2018 and 28.03.2018 amongst other prayers. The High Court has dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order dated 11.01.2019. Having regard to the subject-matter and the questions involved, we may also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22.05.2008 whereby the State Government made it clear that 'on deletion of Sub-clauses (vi) and (vii) of Clause 7 of the RIPS-2003 w.e.f. 28.04.2006, none of the types enumerated at Serial No. 1 to 6 in the clarification will qualify for benefits under the deleted sub-clauses'. The High Court also referred to the amendment dated 30.09.2008, whereby another proviso was added after Sub-clause (iii) of Clause 7 to the effect that the investment made or committed before 22.05.2008 or under MoU signed during Resurgent Rajasthan Summit, for both new cement unit or unit under expansion having capacity of more than 200 tons per day, shall be eligible for subsidy under Clause 7 on the condition that the unit shall start commercial production by 31.03.2011. 13.4. Having thus traversed through the whole gamut of Clause 7 of RIPS-2003 with its amendments/revisions as also the background aspects relating to the propositions of the company, the High Court took note of the application 29 made by the company for issuance of entitlement certificate and for benefits under the amendment dated 02.12.2005 and pointed out the fundamental flaw therein that the amendment dated 02.12.2005 had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever explained its understanding subsequently on 01.04.2006. The SLSC thus misunderstood the decision of the BIDI. The RIPS-2003 also does not provide any clarification for such a decision. In the cited judgments on this aspect, it has been indicated that such interpretation by a particular authority has by no means a controlling effect upon the courts and if occasion arises, has to be disregarded for cogent and perspective reason and in a clear case of error, the court would without hesitation refuse to follow such construction.... (emphasis in bold supplied) 13.6. Another line of submissions on behalf of the Appellant that tax incentives cannot be withdrawn retrospectively was also rejected by the High Court with reference to the nature of benefits availed by the Appellant. The High Court, inter alia, observed as follows: .....Cited judgments arose out of the matters where the beneficiary having not collected tax by virtue of acceptance of exemption by the Government could not be saddled with liability retrospectively. In the present case, the situation is entirely different in that the Petitioners availed undue advantage at the time when it established the plant, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the submission made on behalf of the Appellant that the Respondents were bound by the principles of promissory estoppel and rejected the same with two-fold observations: one that there could be no estoppel against the statute; and secondly, that there was no such representation held out to the Appellant by BIDI or SLSC as alleged. The High Court observed and held as under: The argument that impugned revisional order constituted breach of the promise held out to the Petitioner company which was binding on the Respondents by doctrine of promissory estoppel and equitable estoppel cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that there could be no estoppel against the statute. The BIDI did not direct the SLSC to grant 75% tax subsidy to the Petitioner-company. It merely directed that the recently announced cement package and RIPS-2003 shall be applicable on the company. When the BIDI had itself not taken the decision and directed for extending the recently announced cement package as per RIPS-2003, that would mean that the provisions contained in RIPS-2003 would have to be adhered to and the case of the Petitioner-company would be dealt with in accordance therewith. The two pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03 was not at all a possible view of the matter; and that the Appellant 'fully understood this situation', which was evident from its representation made on 26.05.2006. 13.11. Yet further, the High Court examined the contention on behalf of the Appellant that every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the subordinate authority cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and also referred to the cited decision in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala State (2000) 2 SCC 718 while pointing out that the phrase prejudicial to the interest of revenue is of wide import and not confined to loss of tax alone. After extracting relevant passages from the cited decision, the High Court applied the principles to the case at hand as follows: Applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgment on the facts of the present case, it has to be accepted that due to erroneous reading of the order of the BIDI, which did not by itself direct for grant of 75% tax subsidy but merely directed that the recently announced cement package and the RIPS-2003 shall be applicable on the company , the SLSC could have extended only such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was issued/received within six months from February, 2017, up to which time, subsidy was fully availed by the Petitioner-company. Therefore, the argument that exercise of power of revision within five years after the expiry of seven years during which benefit was availed by the Petitioner-company, makes the said provision as unreasonable, arbitrary, oppressive and violative of fundamental rights of the Petitioners, has no merit. 14. The order so passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition and the action of the Respondents recalling 25% part of the subsidy have been questioned in this appeal. Rival Contentions The Appellants 15. Assailing the orders passed by the High Court as also the Additional Chief Secretary, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants has painstakingly taken us through the facts of the case and has made elaborate submissions that grant of 75% subsidy to the Appellant company had been valid in law and justified on facts. 15.1. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the company had applied to BIDI for a customized package of incentives for the proposed cement plant at Kotputli; and this application was disposed of by BIDI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the record and the factual position deserves to be accepted by the Court on the doctrine of Contemporanea Expositio. 15.2.1. The learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that though it was expressly admitted in the Show Cause Notice dated 10.07.2017 that BIDI did take a decision on 01.04.2006, but it was alleged that BIDI did not expressly grant 75% subsidy; and the same view is reflected in the revisional order, which has been approved by the High Court. However, according to the learned Counsel, this view would render the words 'recently announced cement package' in BIDI's decision dated 01.04.2006 completely meaningless; and this view is also contrary to the contemporaneous understanding of the SLSC, as set out in the Minutes of its meeting dated 17.03.2011. The learned Counsel would maintain that the words of BIDI, giving 'recently announced cement package' to the company, could only mean granting of 75% subsidy, though it was not under or in terms of Clauses 7(vi) or 7(vii) but, was relatable to the proviso to Clauses 7(i)(a) and 7(i)(b) of RIPS-2003. 15.3. It has also been submitted by the learned Counsel that the Appellant made its entire inves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by this Court in the manner that if the adjudication order constitutes one of the possible views, then no revision would lie. According to the learned Counsel, the view taken by SLSC, as set out in its Minutes of the meeting dated 17.03.2011, had certainly been a possible view and, therefore, in any event, no proceedings for revision under Clause 13 of RIPS-2003 were maintainable against this decision of SLSC. 15.6. The learned Senior Counsel has also argued, while relying on various decisions, including that of this Court in Birla Jute Industries Ltd. v. State of M.P. 119 STC 14 (S.C.) and that of Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur and Anr. v. Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal and Ors. 38 Tax Up-date 131, that when the incentives granted to the Assessee had been fully availed of and the incentive period had already been completed, the incentives cannot thereafter be revoked or recalled with retrospective effect. 15.7. The learned Senior Counsel has also questioned the levy of interest with the submissions that the grant of 25% subsidy has been revoked not because of any default committed by the Appellant but only because of a sudden cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 16.1.1. While refuting the claim of the Appellant, as based on the proviso to Clauses 7(i)(a) and 7(i)(b) of RIPS-2003, the learned AAG has contended that the general powers under the said proviso could not have been exercised by BIDI on 01.04.2006, because on that date, the said Sub-clauses (vi) and (vii) of Clause 7 were in existence and they co-related with cement units alone. The learned AAG would submit that the Appellant company is a cement unit and the contemporaneous correspondence amply demonstrates that even the Appellants construed at the relevant point of time that the subsidy was given under the said Sub-clauses (vi) and (vii) of Clause 7 of RIPS-2003; and only in order to circumvent the deletion of the said Sub-clauses (vi) and (vii), the Appellants started to claim subsidy under proviso to Clause 7(i)(a) and 7(i)(b) of RIPS-2003. According to the learned AAG, the claim so made by the Appellant had only been an afterthought and cannot be countenanced, for it would result in conferring a benefit that had ceased to exist post 28.04.2006. With repeat reference to the Minutes of BIDI meeting dated 01.04.2006, the learned AAG has submitted that not a single document e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of availing the benefit by the Appellant company being in the month of February 2017, the revisional order passed on 12.03.2018 remains well within the stipulated period under Clause 13(b) of RIPS-2003. 16.5. Levy of interest has also been justified on behalf of the Respondents with reference to the terms and conditions of RIPS-2003 and with the submissions that the Appellant company is bound to refund the amount wrongfully received while also compensating the Government in terms of interest stipulated in the Scheme or at least as agreed to in the undertaking submitted to the Government. 16.5.1. It has been argued by the learned AAG that the subsidy was in the form of a contract between the State Government and the Appellant company and hence, the Appellant is bound by the undertaking that if any excess benefit is availed, the same shall be returned with 12% per annum interest. The learned AAG has submitted that even on the principles embodied in Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, any benefit received by mistake must be returned with interest so as to avoid unjust enrichment. Points for determination 17. For what has been noticed hereinabove, the basic point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ackage. In our view, these submissions suffer from several shortcomings, where a fine but well-defined line of separation between the resolution/decision of BIDI dated 01.04.2006 and the decision of SLSC dated 17.3.2011, is ignored. 19.1. As noticed, the application earlier made by the company was considered in the Pre-BIDI meeting dated 28.03.2006 and the recommendations therein had only been to the effect that the cement package recently announced and RIPS-2003 should be applicable to the company. The decision of BIDI in its meeting dated 01.04.2006 had also been specifically in line of the Pre-BIDI recommendations where it was directed that 'the recently announced cement package and RIPS-2003 will be applicable on the company'. At the given stage of Pre-BIDI recommendations dated 28.03.2006 and the decision of BIDI dated 01.04.2006, the aforesaid Sub-clauses (vi) and (vii) of Clause 7 of RIPS-2003 were in existence and, in fact, the phrase recently announced cement package precisely referred to the said provisions of Sub-clauses (vi) and (vii), which had been inserted to Clause 7 of RIPS-2003 on 02.12.2005. Moreover, even when BIDI stated that 'recently announce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rent on the face of the record that neither in Pre-BIDI's recommendation dated 28.03.2006 nor in the final decision of BIDI dated 01.04.2006, there had at all been any proposition for invocation and application of the said proviso to Clauses 7(i)(a) and 7(i)(b) of RIPS-2003. The application made on behalf of the company had precisely been with reference to the contents of the said Sub-clauses (vi) and (vii) of Clause 7 seeking 75% subsidy, 45% being allowable upfront and remaining 30% in the form of interest and wage/employment subsidy, with cap of interest subsidy to the extent of 5% of the documented rate of interest. There had never been any proposal before BIDI in the case of the Appellant company to invoke the said proviso to Clauses 7(i)(a) and 7(i)(b) of RIPS-2003 so as to increase the maximum limit of subsidy to 75%. Proceeding ahead of the decision of BIDI dated 01.04.2006, the fact that the company was consciously seeking the benefit Under Sub-clause (vii) of Clause 7 of RIPS-2003 is again evident on the face of the record on a bare look at the contents of its application dated 26.04.2006. No decision on this application was taken; and within two days of making of thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imit by unwarranted application of the decision of BIDI dated 01.04.2006 and that too with its misconstruction; by reading into it such powers, which had neither been invoked nor exercised by BIDI. The decision of SLSC dated 17.03.2011 and its repeat decision dated 24.11.2011, turn out to be wholly perverse and could only be disapproved. 21. Taking up the question if the decision of BIDI is relatable to the grant of a customised package, the answer would be in the negative without requiring much discussion because such grant of customised incentive package for any particular company or establishment was governed by Clause 6-A of RIPS-2003 that had an entirely different prescribed authority in the form of a Committee, who was supposed to examine individual cases and could have made recommendation for sanction of the customised incentive package through BIDI. In the entire length of dealings in this matter, we are unable to find any such decision by the Committee referred to in Clause 6-A and any recommendation for customised incentive package in relation to the Appellant. The decision of BIDI dated 01.04.2006 also does not refer to nor is relatable with any customised package mea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) and (vii) of Clause 7 had already been deleted; and is simultaneously conferred with dubious discretion to interpret the decision of BIDI in whatever manner it would chose to. Obviously, such arbitrary authority or unfettered discretion is not available to any decision taking body; and could least be countenanced for a responsible body of the Government, like SLSC, who deals with public exchequer. Having examined the record in its totality, we have not an iota of doubt that the initial decision of SLSC had not only been erroneous but had been highly perverse, reaching the level of absurdity. The view of SLSC cannot be regarded as a possible view of the matter from any standpoint or any angle. 24.2. Apart from the above, even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that there was any ambiguity in the applicable provisions of RIPS-2003 or the decision of BIDI, we are clearly of the view that the benefit of any such ambiguity could not have been extended to the Appellant company. If at all there had been any ambiguity, the benefit thereof would have only gone in favour of revenue for the simple reason that under the provisions in question, the State had agreed, by way of incen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oposition that incentive provisions must receive liberal interpretation or to say, leaning in favour of grant of relief to the Assessee is not an approach countenanced by this Court. The law declared by the Constitution Bench in relation to exemption notification, proprio vigore, would apply to the interpretation and application of any akin proposition in the taxing statutes for exemption, deduction, rebate et al., which all are essentially the form of tax incentives given by the Government to incite or encourage or support any particular activity...... 24.3. In view of the above, contention on the part of the Appellant about existence of any ambiguity in the matter and extending the benefit of ambiguity to itself could only be, and is, rejected. Doctrine of Contemporanea Expositio: if applicable? 25. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant has endeavoured to persuade us that SLSC's understanding of the record and factual position deserves to be accepted on the doctrine of Contemporanea Expositio. In our view, neither this doctrine could be invoked in the present case nor the principles related therewith could be applied. 25.1. The referred doctrine is e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Referring to Magna Carta, Lord Coke said: This and the like were the forms of ancient Acts and graunts, and the ancient Act and graunts must be construed and taken as the law was holden at that time when they were made . 33 ..... The doctrine of stare decisis may also be applied when the law is settled in a State for over 100 years by considered view of the High Court of that State. 34 .....Even if the persons who dealt with the Act understood it in a particular manner, that does not prevent the court in giving to the Act its true construction. 35 ...The Supreme Court has refused to apply the principle of Contemporanea Expositio to the Telegraph Act, 1885 36 and the Evidence Act, 1872. 37 Further, an interpretation to a statute received from contemporary authority is not binding upon the Courts and may have to be disregarded if such interpretation is clearly wrong.... 25.3. Suffice it to observe for the present purpose that in essence, the doctrine of Contemporanea Expositio is applied as a guide to the interpretation of a statute or even document by referring to the exposition that the same had received from competent authority at the relevant point of time. This do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it emanates from the understanding of some of the officers or authorities, the same would acquire immunity from scrutiny for all time to come. Such has never been the intent of the doctrine of Contemporanea Expositio nor could such a result be countenanced. Whether principles of Promissory Estoppel apply? 26. Another line of submissions on behalf of the Appellant based on the principles of promissory estoppel remains equally baseless. Of course, while rejecting such a contention, the High Court observed that this doctrine cannot be invoked against a statute but, at the same time, the High Court also categorically found that in fact, no representation was held out to the Appellant by BIDI or SLSC as sought to be alleged. 26.1. RIPS-2003 had admittedly been a non-statutory scheme but that hardly makes a difference looking to the nature of purport of this Scheme whereby the State was ultimately to extend the benefit by reducing its intake of the amount of Sales Tax/VAT; and such an intake is indeed governed by the statute. This apart, as noticed hereinbefore, it cannot be deduced that a conscious decision was ever taken at any stage or at any level that the Appellant was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by this Court in Kasinka Trading v. Union of India (1995) 1 SCC 274 as also in Shabi Construction Co. v. City Industrial Development Corporation (1995) 4 SCC 301 wherein it is laid down that the rule of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked for the enforcement of a promise or a declaration which is contrary to law or outside the authority or power of the Government or the person making that promise. (emphasis in bold supplied) 26.3. Even otherwise, when the decision of SLSC, or any decision of any authority for that matter, was subject to revision by the Government in terms of Clause 13 of the Scheme, it cannot be suggested that the said power of revision cannot be invoked. In other words, the principles of promissory estoppel cannot operate against such revisional power of the Government. Hence, this part of the contentions also deserves to be, and is, rejected. Exercise of powers of revision by the State Government under Clause 13 27. For the self-same reasons aforesaid, the contentions urged on behalf of the Appellant against the exercise of power of revision under Clause 13 of RIPS-2003 with reference to the decision of this Court in the case of M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are possible and the Income Tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Income Tax Officer is unsustainable in law. It has been held by this Court that where a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. (See Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT (1868) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323.) 11. In the instant case, the Commissioner noted that the Income Tax Officer passed the order of nil assessment without application of mind. Indeed, the High Court recorded the finding that the Income Tax Officer failed to apply his mind to the case in all perspective and the order passed by him was erroneous. It appears that the resolution passed by the Board of the Appellant Company was not placed before the Assessing Officer. Thus, there was no material to support the claim of the Appellant that the said amount represented compensation for loss of agric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot relatable to the specific stipulation of the Scheme in question and need no further dilation. 29. It is also noteworthy that the fundamental questions on the correctness of the decision of SLSC dated 17.03.2011 were indeed raised by the Finance Department of the Government by its letter dated 17.11.2011. As noticed, the Industries Department chose not to respond to the said communication and reminders of the Finance Department for an abnormal length of time and sent a reply only in the month of February 2017. By that time, the Appellant had practically availed the entire advantage under the questioned decision of the SLSC. Thereafter, the SLSC re-examined the matter only on 22.05.2017 and left it for the Finance Department to take proceedings under Clause 13 of RIPS-2013. In the given set of facts and circumstances, the suggestion that already availed benefit cannot be withdrawn turn out to be hollow and baseless because whatever was obtained by the Appellant, beyond its entitlement, had only been based on an erroneous and unauthorised decision of SLSC. In any case, RIPS-2003 being a matter of concession in the form of subsidy, securing an advantage by the Appellant at the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant was allowed 25% extra subsidy and which was, obviously, prejudicial to the interest of revenue; and mere availing of the benefits by the Appellant under the erroneous decisions of SLSC is of no effect, particularly when the State Government has exercised the powers of revision within the time stipulated in Clause 13 of RIPS-2003. 31. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in affirming the order of the High Court dated 11.01.2019 and in turn, approving the order of revision dated 12.03.2018 insofar the Additional Chief Secretary held that the Kotputli Cement Works Unit of the Appellant company was entitled to Capital Investment Subsidy only to the extent of 50% of the payable and deposited tax and not to the extent of 75%, as availed by it pursuant to the Entitlement Certificates dated 29.04.2011 and 24.11.2011 erroneously issued by the State Level Screening Committee. The SLSC was rightly directed to issue the new Entitlement Certificate for subsidy to the limit of 50% of total tax to the said Kotputli Unit of the Appellant company; and the company was rightly directed to refund the amount of subsidy availed in excess of 50% of payable and deposited tax. 31.1. Howev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the excessive amount of subsidy by way of any misrepresentation. The basic fault had been on the part of SLSC in taking erroneous decisions and in issuing unauthorised Entitlement Certificates dated 29.04.2011 and 24.11.2011. The Respondent State took an abnormally long time in realising the mistake on the part of its functionaries and took corrective measures only after the entire benefit had already been availed of inasmuch as the proceedings for recall were initiated only in the month of July 2017 which led to the impugned order dated 12.03.2018 and then, the Re-revised Entitlement Certificate was issued only on 02.04.2018. 33.2. Apart from the above, it is also noticed that even when the Scheme envisaged interest at the rate of 18% per annum, in Form 2 filed by the Appellants, undertaking was stated to repay the amount of subsidy, in case of availing excessive benefits or non-compliance with the provisions of the Scheme, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum 39 . Both the parties had proceeded with reference to the said undertaking furnished on behalf of the Appellant and the same is required to be treated as a binding term of contract between them. 33.3. Hence, whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. FOOTNOTE 1 'ACS' for short 2 Hereinafter also referred to as 'RIPS-2003' or simply 'the Scheme'. 3 The company's name was changed to M/s. Ultratech Cement Limited w.e.f. 01.08.2010. 4 Hereinafter also referred to as 'the subsidy'. 5 For continuity of discussion, we shall refer only to the Appellant No. 1 as 'the Appellant' or 'the company'. 6 For continuity of discussion, we shall refer to the Respondents collectively and shall refer to the particular Respondent only when necessary in the context. 7 'SLSC' for short. 8 BIDI for short. 9 MoU for short. 10'Finance Department' has appeared in short form 'FD' in some of the expressions. 11 A copy of this Scheme, as amended upto 05.08.2010, has been placed on record as Annexure P-1 and another copy of this Scheme, as amended upto 25.01.2010, has been placed for perusal in compilation by the Respondents. The extractions herein are from the copy of Scheme as amended upto 05.08.2010. 12 As per amendment dated 06.08 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
