9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsidy. The attempt of the respondent authorities to invoke the principles of the 2004 scheme and the caps stipulated therein as well as the principles embodied in the 2000 scheme, per se, is entirely mala fide and arbitrary and designed to defeat the petitioners legitimate claim for the balance amount under the special package - there is no scope of giving a premium to such arbitrary endeavour of the State. The respondent authorities to ensure that the balance amount due to the petitioners, to the tune of Rs. 1,18,22,02,436/-, in terms of the break-up given in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners today, to which the petitioners are entitled to under the special package-in-question, be disbursed to the petitioners at the earliest, positively within three months from date - Application allowed. - SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J. For the Petitioners : Mr. Ratnanko Banerji Mr. Sakya Sen Mr. Rajarshi Dutta Mr. Soorjya Ganguli Mr. Somdutta Bhattacharyya Ms. Radhika Misra. For the State : Mr. Anirban Ray Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Mr. Debapriya Chatterjee. 1. The petitioners claim under an Industrial Promotional Assistance (IPA), which is a special packa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served that the packages granted to three cement manufacturing units including the petitioner no. 1 were granted in lieu of Interest Subsidy under the relevant scheme. 13. Thereafter reference has been made to the 2000 and 2004 Schemes, which apparently contemplated a limit of Rs. 100 Lakh per year in respect of Interest Subsidy. 14. Learned senior counsel contends that such reliance on the 2000 and 2004 Schemes was entirely erroneous, since the petitioners do not fall under either. 15. The special package granted to the petitioners, it is argued, was not within the contemplation of either the 2000 or the 2004 Schemes, nor did it relate to Interest Subsidy, as evident from the language of the said package itself. 16. It is reiterated that the package clearly mentioned that the unit would be entitled to all other subsidies as laid down in WBIS 2000 except Interest Subsidy. 17. That apart, the impugned order also went on to find that the reference to without any financial cap had to be read in the context of the cap of Rs. 100 Lakh per year in respect of Interest Subsidy, which found place in the Schemes-in-question, particularly in para 20(e)(iii) of the WBIS 2004, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at large. 27. It is further argued that incentive schemes, as opposed to taxing statutes, have to be interpreted in favour of the revenue granting authority/State. 28. It is argued by learned counsel for the respondents that the principle of promissory estoppel is not applicable to distribution of State largesse by way of subsidy schemes. 29. In such context, learned counsel for the State places reliance on Sales Tax Officer and another vs. Shree Durga Oil Mills and another reported at (1998) 1 SCC 572 and Union of India and another vs. V.V.F. Limited and another reported at (2020) 20 SCC 57. 30. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the petitioners, undisputedly, claim subsidy/incentive under a special package, which was given to the petitioners on March 2, 2006. The petitioners have annexed eligibility certificates and, as such, were obviously eligible for the package. 31. The said package, in no uncertain terms, specifies that the Industrial Promotional Assistance (IPA) would be at the rate of 75% of VAT and CST paid in the previous year to the year for which IPA would be released without any financial cap by way of adjustment agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on record or from the arguments of the respondent authorities indicate that there was a declared change of policy or withdrawal of the special package given to the petitioners at any point of time. 43. In so far as the judgments cited by the respondent authorities are concerned, the same are distinguishable from the facts of the present case on two very important scores. In both the said judgments, the occasion of challenge was the declared change of policy by way of withdrawal/floating of previous or new policies. The entire gamut of challenge in both the said cases was such change of policy, in which context the Supreme Court repeatedly reiterated that the principle of promissory estoppel does not apply to the authorities or the State, in so far as the same relates to policy decisions of the Government or the authorities. 45. The question of promissory estoppel is not relevant in the present case. The doctrine sought to be invoked by the petitioners is not mere promissory estoppel but a notch higher, that is, estoppel substantially. 46. As opposed to promissory estoppel, in case of a substantial estoppel, an act has actually been done by the respondent authorities, on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
