IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the lack of explicit restrictions in the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011 regarding the commencement of production prior to SIPB approval invalidated the denial of incentives based on such grounds.

JUDGMENT :

(A. Abhishek Reddy, J.)

The present writ petition is filed for the following relief(s):-

i. For issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ setting aside the email dated 14.10.2011 and the attachment therein whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner under the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy 2011 has been rejected on the ground that the proposal of the petitioner was accepted by the State Investment Promotion Board after the date of commercial production of the unit.

ii. For issuing writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ setting aside the letter dated 23.11.2017 bearing memo No.3473 (to the extent it relates to the petitioner) whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner under the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy 2011 had been rejected on the ground of proposal of the petitioner not having approval of the competent 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 postproduction 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 interfere with the disbursal of the reimbursement/subsidy amount to the Petitioner.

vi. For holding that the Respondents erred by not releasing full Reimbursements and subsides amount given the fact that they hold no authority to refuse/stop/interfere, once proposal of investment has been accepted by the State Investment Promotion Board (SIPB).

Vii. For holding that it is the duty of the Respondents to timely release the payments for reimbursement under the head of VAT/GST every time the petitioner submits an application for the same and the petitioner need not go through the unnecessary technicalities and procedures again.

Vii. For holding that the Respondents cannot make the Petitioner run from pillar to post for reimbursement/subsidy once it is found entitled.

ix. For any relies/ direction/directions for which the petitioner is entitled may be given.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the impugned order is passed by the authority concerned solely on the ground that the petitioner has started production even before the approval has been granted by the State Investment Promotion Board (SIPB).

3. Learned counsel has stated that under the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011, the petitioner’s entitlement for re-imbursement of VAT/ET/SGST was denied on the ground that the petitioner has started commercial production even before the approval by SIPB and the authorities have rejected the case of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel has stated that there is nothing under the regulation which states that the approval of the SIPB is a condition precedent for starting the commercial production. That the stand taken by the authorities is not only arbitrary, bad and illegal but also contrary 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 viola