K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.—The issue agitated in the appeal is in a narrow compass, as to whether Industrial Incentive Policy, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Policy’) provided for incentive by way of reimbursement of 80% of the Entry Tax (ET) and Central Sales Tax (CST) together with the Value Added Tax (VAT).

2. The learned Single Judge found the issue in favour of the assessee, the writ petitioner, on three grounds. First on the clarification to clause 2(6) of the Policy; providing for ‘Subsidy/Incentive on Value Added Tax’, having stipulated that the incentive would not be payable on the amount imposed as penalty; as also the difference of amounts between tax assessed and accepted under the Central Sales Tax (CST)/Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (VAT Act) and Bihar Entry Tax Act (ET Act). This, according to the learned Single Judge, clearly indicates that the incentive would be payable on all the three taxes and not on VAT alone. The next reasoning was that in Annexure-III to the Policy; which is the Pass Book to be maintained for the purpose of claiming incentives, there is provision for showing the amount of tax admitted under VAT, CST and ET enactments; which according to the learned Single Judge leaves nothing for speculation or determination or adjudication considering the plain meaning thereof that the incentive would be available also on the Entry Tax. The return was also looked into, which was in form RT – 3, which clearly depicted the amount deposited by the assessee, by way of Entry Tax, as forming an integral part of the amount of admitted VAT of the assessee, which makes both inseparable; the last of the grounds on which the incentive was find to be applicable to Entry Tax also. It was hence held that the eligibility to incentive, also encompass the Entry Tax paid, as per the Policy and the nominal heading of a provision or clause, cannot be merely relied upon to exclude something which is otherwise included. Looking at the Policy as a whole and the language employed, the inclusion of Entry Tax was held to be clear, unambiguous and unequivocal. Despite the heading which speaks of subsidy and incentive to VAT alone, the substantive provision indicates otherwise; was the declaration. The learned Single Judge also relied on the principle of promissory estoppel insofar as the assessee having altered their position, by making investments as per the Policy; acting upon the promise of the State as projected in the Policy document.

3. The learned Advocate General, Shri P.K Shahi appearing for appellant-State took us through clause 2(vi) of the policy document to assert that the plain and simple language used therein would clearly indicate that the incentive was confined to VAT. The reference to CST and Entry Tax in the clarification cannot be interpreted in a manner, which would run contrary to the substantive clause which grants the incentive. The clarification only indicates that the difference of the tax assessed as CST, VAT and Entry Tax, exceeding the admitted/ accepted tax; would not be available for reimbursement as an incentive. The use of the words ‘accepted’ and ‘assessed’ are in the context of the VAT regime having brought in self-assessment by filing of returns as prescribed, which is the tax liability ‘accepted’ by the assessee. Whereas the Assessing Authority under the VAT Act is empowered to carry out re-assessment, after scrutiny of the returns filed, which will be the tax ‘assessed’. The learned Advocate General also relies on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Khichri Ram and Another vs. State of Bihar and Others; (2009) 2 PLJR 265, to contend that if there is any ambiguity in the English version, the Hindi version, which is the original notification in the official language of the State, has to be looked at; which has be treated as the authentic Policy framed by the State. The learned Single Judge clearly erred in bringing Entry Tax also into the incentive umbrella created by the Policy, whic