9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tedly, has applied to the Competent Authority i.e. SIPB and was granted approval on 30.06.2015 and as per the said policy, the petitioner is entitled for re-imbursement of VAT/ET/SGST. But, the case of the petitioner has been rejected on the sole ground that the petitioner has started commercial production even before the grant of approval by SIPB - Admittedly in the present case, the approval was granted on 30.06.2015 and it is the case of the respondents that the commercial production has started on 08.08.2014 merely because the production is started the incentive under the scheme cannot be disallowed. At the most, the incentives can be granted from the date of the approval of SIPB but the authorities cannot deny the incentives under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t authority. iii. For issuing writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the petitioner its entitlement under the head of reimbursement of VAT/ET/SGST paid under the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011 in cases of VAT/ET/SGST reimbursement. iv. For issuing appropriate writ declaring that the payments to the Petitioner as per entitlement for post-production incentives such as Reimbursement for VAT/ET/GST paid cannot be kept pending or denied and has to be timely paid to Petitioner. v. For holding that once the proposal of the investment has been accepted and petitioner is declared entitled under the Policy then the Respondents cannot interefere with the disbursal of the subsidy amount to the Petitioner. vi. For holding that the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary to the scheme floated by the State of Bihar under the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011, and therefore, prayed this Hon ble Court to allow the present writ petition and give a direction to the authorities concerned for granting the incentives under the Bihar Industrial Incentives policy, 2011. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently opposed the prayer of this writ petition and has stated that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. 6. Learned counsel has stated that the petitioner has not taken prior approval of the SIPB before starting the production. The act of the petitioner in starting the production even before the approval was granted is in violatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icy does not lay any guidelines or restrictions on the industrialists that the production cannot be started before the approval by SIPB is granted and does not state that any person who starts production without getting the necessary approvals from SIPB is disentitled to the incentives. Admittedly in the present case, the approval was granted on 30.06.2015 and it is the case of the respondents that the commercial production has started on 08.08.2014 merely because the production is started the incentive under the scheme cannot be disallowed. At the most, the incentives can be granted from the date of the approval of SIPB but the authorities cannot deny the incentives under the scheme as a whole. 8. Having regard to the above made submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
