9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 941X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The present demand appears to be for exemption of Sales Tax beyond the period of the policy which cannot be claimed as a matter of right. This Court also finds force in the contention of the learned Standing Counsel, Industries Commerce Department that there has been huge diversion of money of the petitioner company to other companies. A perusal of the minutes of meeting held in the chamber of the Additional Secretary, Industries Commerce dated 14.06.2000 would show that huge amounts were diverted and the same was confirmed by the Managing Director of the petitioner. This Court is of the opinion that the relief claimed is based on speculation and assumption and it does not appear that there is any indefeasible right of the petitioner for such relief. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not act as a Court of Appeal and its functions are only confined to the decision making process. In the impugned order dated 20.09.2013, reasons are reflected which according to this Court are cogent and acceptable. This Court is of the further opinion that the factors which have been considered, namely, availing of the benefits o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perating Agency. Accordingly, IFCI had prepared the Draft Rehabilitation Scheme (DRS). 4. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of the same, the dues with the Financial Institutions were settled and the DRS incorporated incentives under the 1991 Policy. Unfortunately, the benefit of the said Policy was not extended to the petitioner company. It is a case of the petitioner that the Industries Department of the State had informed the Operating Agency vide letter dated 13.03.1998 regarding the continuation of the benefit to the petitioner company. However, later, the State Government had a stand that the 1991 benefits would not be available to the petitioner as it was declared sick by the BIFR only on 25.11.1997 by which, the 1997 Policy had already come into force. 5. On 14.06.2000, a meeting was held amongst all parties in which it was revealed that the application dated 02.01.1997 which was submitted by the petitioner was yet to be considered. Accordingly, it was resolved that a fresh application be submitted to the Director of Industries which would be processed for examination and consideration for declaring the unit as a Relief Undertaking by the Government of Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner company that there are many dependent families of indigenous people connected with the company and therefore, interference is required from this Court. 11. On the other hand, Shri A. Kalita, learned Standing Counsel, Industries Commerce Department has submitted that the scope of interference by this Court in this matter is a limited one. He submits that the impugned order has been passed only after a remand was made by this Court vide order dated 28.01.2013. He submits that the aforesaid order dated 28.01.2013 of the Hon ble Division Bench would show that there was no interference on the merits and the remand was almost on a concession made on behalf of the petitioner that a final reasoned order may be passed by the Government. 12. By drawing the attention of the impugned order dated 20.09.2013 the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the same would reveal that the relevant factors were taken into consideration including the fact of availing Sales Tax exemption, subsidy on generating set, subsidy on infrastructural facilities, subsidy on man power development and power subsidy. The Sales Tax was duly assessed and it was held that the unit had already availed ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not entitled to any relief as per the Industrial Policies except the Industrial Policy, 1986, under which benefit had already been availed by the petitioner. He has particularly referred to letter dated 22.06.2000 by the Additional Secretary to the Government of Assam to the Industrial Finance Corporation of India, Kolkata. Since learned counsel for the petitioner only submits that a final reasoned order may be passed by the Government, without expressing any opinion on merits, we direct that such a final decision may be taken in the matter within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petition is disposed of. 18. It appears that in the order dated 28.01.2013 by which the writ petition was disposed of, it was recorded that the petition was filed in the year 2001 seeking a direction to revive the petitioner sick unit pursuant to a minutes of meeting dated 14.06.2000 and also to quash the order dated 22.11.2001 passed by the Board of Industries and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). The stand of the State that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief and that the benefit had already been availing by the petitioner was recorded. It appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
