A. Abhishek Reddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:—

“vi. For issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent Authorities to bring on record order(s) or letter(s) by which the claim of the petitioner under the head of reimbursement of VAT/SGST paid has been denied for the period April 2021 to September 2021 and the ground that the production of the petitioner unit was below 25% of Installed capacity.

vii. For issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ setting aside the order(s) or letter(s) so brought on record by the Respondent Authorities by which the claim of the petitioner under the head of reimbursement of VAT/SGST paid has been denied for the period April 2021 to September 2021 and the ground that the production of the petitioner unit was below 25% of installed capacity.

viii. For issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the petitioner its entitlement under the head of reimbursement of SGST paid for the period April 2021 to September 2021 which has been denied on the ground that the petitioner has not done production of more than 25% during the said period.

ix. For issuing the writ of mandamus directing the respondents nor to with hold payment of reimbursement of SGST paid on the ground that the petitioner has not done production of more than 25%.

x. For any reliefs, direction/directions for which the petitioner is entitled may be given.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner pursuant to the Incentive Policy, 2011 floated by the Government of Bihar has set up a plastic furniture unit. That due permission was accorded to the unit of the petitioner by the State Investment Promotion Board (SIPB) in its meeting held on 21.07.2010 and, thereafter, letter dated 13.08.2010 (Annexure-P/2) was issued to the petitioner. That the unit of the petitioner started production on 08.11.2011, the petitioner was given the eligibility certificate for reimbursement of the VAT/SGST on 31.08.2012 (Annexure-P/3). That when the petitioner was denied the incentives i.e., reimbursement of VAT/SGST by the State Government, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of CWJC No. 10492 of 2021 (Annexure-P/4). This Court vide order dated 24.03.2022 has directed the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for reimbursement of the VAT/SGST duly taking into consideration the orders passed by this Court in the case of M/s Sunny Stars Hotel Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2020(2) PLJR 321 [: 2020 (2) BLJ 55]. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to file necessary documents and also certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant to show that the unit of the petitioner is in production. The petitioner accordingly submitted the required documents however, the authorities while granting the reimbursement for the period July 2017 to March 2021 have rejected the claim of the petitioner for the period April 2021 to September 2021. Learned counsel has stated that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for the period April 2021 to September 2021 is ostensibly on the ground that the production of the unit of the petitioner was less than 25%. Learned counsel has stated that once the petitioner is found eligible for reimbursement of the VAT/SGST as per the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy 2011, the rejection of the claim for the months of April 2021 to September 2021 on the ground that the production in the unit of the petitioner is less than 25% is contrary to the policy. Learned counsel has stated that the subsequent amendments, if any, made will not be applicable to the petitioner as the petitioner has established the unit based on the promises given by the Government of Bihar under the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011. Learned counsel has therefore, prayed this Hon’ble Court to allow the present writ petition and direct the respondents to rei