9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied on 17.11.2016 and it was found functioning as on date. Even the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents on 16.03.2022 reveal that the petitioner unit had to be closed down sometime in January, 2018 due to financial crisis and shortage or raw materials. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that the respondent authorities, more particularly, the State Level Committee ought not to have rejected the claims of the petitioner on the ground that with effect from January, 2018 the petitioner unit was not functioning. This Court therefore sets aside the decisions of the State Level Committee taken in its 55th meeting held on 09.08.2018 and 21.08.2018, whereby the petitioner's 3 claims were rejected as well as the decision taken in the 57th meeting of the State Level Committee, held on 31.12.2019, whereby the petitioner's 13 claims for transport subsidy were rejected on the ground that the petitioner unit was found closed since January, 2018. In the above backdrop, this Court further finds it relevant to direct the State Level Committee to decide on the 16 claims of the petitioner, as tabulated hereinabove, on the basis of the Transport Subsidy Scheme and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n selected areas in respect of raw materials which are brought into, and finished goods which are taken out of such areas. Taking into account that the instant writ petition pertains to an industrial unit which was set up in the North Eastern Region, this Court finds it relevant to take note that under the Transport Subsidy Scheme, transport subsidy in the North Eastern Region would be given to industrial units on the transport costs between Siliguri and the location of the industrial unit in the States of North Eastern States/Union Territories. It is further mentioned in the notification that while calculating the transport costs of raw materials, the cost of movement by rail from Siliguri to the railway station nearest to the location of the industrial unit and, thereafter, the cost of movement by road to the location of the industrial unit will be taken into account. Similarly, while calculating the transport costs of finished goods, the costs of movement by road from the location of the industrial unit to the nearest railway station and thereafter the cost of movement by rail to Siliguri will be taken into account. Further to that, in case of North-Eastern Region, for raw mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s per Sub-Clause (xiv) of Clause 6, the Director of Industries of the State/Union Territory concerned will draw up procedure and arrangement not only for scrutinising the claims but also arrange for prompt payment of the claims. The number of transport subsidy claims that may be preferred by an industrial unit should not ordinarily exceed one in a quarter. However, The Director of Industries may at his discretion entertain more number of claims in a financial year, if the financial position of the industrial unit so warrants. Sub-Clause (xvii) of Clause-6 grants discretion upon the Government of India or the State Government/Union Territory concerned to refuse to entertain or reject any claim for transport subsidy. However, in terms of Sub-Clause (xviii) of Clause-6, any disqualification from the grant of transport subsidy for such period of time, as the Government of India and/or the State Government/Union Territory concerned may decide, shall be effected after giving a reasonable opportunity to the industrial unit to state its case. The record further reveals that the Transport Subsidy Scheme, which was initially framed in the year 1971 for a particular period, has been extended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08.2018 an inspection of the petitioner unit was carried out for re-verification of the petitioner's TS/FSS claim for the period from 01.04.2011 to 30.06.2013. The Additional Director (UAZ), Office of the Commissioner of Industries & Commerce, Assam, submitted a report pursuant to the said re-verification stating therein that at the time of the inspection, the unit production was found closed due to financial crisis and shortage of raw material as reported by the unit concerned. On the basis of the said report, the State Level Committee, in its meeting held on 31.12.2019, rejected the claims of the petitioner for the period from 01.01.2012 to 31.03.2015 on the ground that the unit was found closed since Januray, 2018 for which the authenticity of the claims could not be established. On that basis all alone the State Level Committee rejected the petitioner's claims. Similarly, in respect of the claims for the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.12.2011, the State Level Committee, in its meeting held on 09.08.2018 rejected the claims of the petitioner unit on the ground that the unit had not been functioning and was shown closed. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the claims by the State L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me and had also taken note of the fact that the petitioner unit was duly functioning at the time when the claims for transport subsidy were made, and this aspect of the matter would be clear from the certificate issued by the General Manager, District Industries and Commerce Centre, Dibrugarh, stating that the petitioner unit was physically verified on 17.11.2016 and it was found functioning as on date. Even the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents on 16.03.2022 reveal that the petitioner unit had to be closed down sometime in January, 2018 due to financial crisis and shortage or raw materials. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that the respondent authorities, more particularly, the State Level Committee ought not to have rejected the claims of the petitioner on the ground that with effect from January, 2018 the petitioner unit was not functioning. 10. Accordingly, this Court therefore sets aside the decisions of the State Level Committee taken in its 55th meeting held on 09.08.2018 and 21.08.2018, whereby the petitioner's 3 claims were rejected as well as the decision taken in the 57th meeting of the State Level Committee, held on 31.12.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
