Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, AAG Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Adv. Ms. Bhaswati Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Devashish Bharuka, AOR

The facts of this case revolve around the respondent, a manufacturing entity with a captive power plant, which claims entitlement to a rebate or deduction of 50% of electricity duty for the fiscal years 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14. The respondent's claim is based on the representations made in the Industrial Policy 2012 of the State of Jharkhand, which explicitly promised that such a rebate would be granted for a period of five years from the date of commissioning of the captive power plant. The respondent received a certificate of commencement of commercial production on 31 May 2013, with the plant having started commercial operations on 17 August 2011, and obtained registration under relevant rules in November 2011, making it liable to pay electricity duty from October 2011 (!) (!) .

The respondent submitted returns for the relevant fiscal years, seeking the rebate/deduction, which were accepted by the assessing authorities, although the assessments were made after the issuance of a notification under Section 9 of the Bihar Electricity Duty Act 1948. The industrial policy's promise was that the notification would be issued within one month, but the State delayed issuance for nearly three years, ultimately issuing a notification in January 2015, which was made prospective from the date of issuance (!) (!) .

The High Court found that the delay and the prospective nature of the notification violated the State's solemn representations in the Industrial Policy 2012, leading to a breach of legitimate expectations and a violation of principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness. The Court held that the State's administrative lethargy and failure to justify the delay rendered its actions arbitrary and in violation of constitutional principles of equality and fairness (!) (!) .

The respondent, relying on the doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectations, sought to enforce the promise of the five-year rebate, arguing that the delay and retrospective enforcement would unjustly deprive them of the benefits promised. The State, on the other hand, contended that the claim was not valid for the earlier years, given the absence of a formal claim in the returns and the prospective nature of the notification. The dispute also involved considerations of whether the delay in filing writ petitions should bar relief and whether the respondent had passed on the duty to its customers, which would affect the applicability of the unjust enrichment doctrine (!) (!) (!) (!) .

In essence, the core facts highlight a conflict between the State's administrative actions and representations made under the industrial policy, and the respondent's reliance on those representations to claim a statutory rebate, with the timing and manner of notification issuance being central to the dispute.