SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Gau) 1014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (SHILLONG BENCH)
A.K.GOSWAMI and S.R. Sen, JJ.
Union of India – Appellants
Vs.
J. Tariang – Respondent
WA No. 26 (SH) of 2011
Decided On: 29.08.2012

Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. S.C. Shyam, CGC
For Respondents/Defendant: Mr. K. Khan

Headnote:

Transport Subsidies - Non-Submission of Claim - This appeal is directed against judgment and order passed in W P allowing writ petition whereby while quashing letter issued by Deputy Secretary Government of India Ministry of Commerce and Industry Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion for short DIPP keeping release of Transport Subsidies in abeyance until further order directions were issued to present appellant as well as respondent Nos 4 and 5 in writ petition to release transport subsidies for period respectively to writ petitioner within a period of one month from date of receipt of judgment with a further direction to appellant and respondent No - 5 in writ petition to pay simple interest on aforesaid amount from date of pre-audit report till realization of said transport subsidies for wrongfully withholding same - Aggrieved Union of India represented by Secretary Government of India Ministry of Commerce and Industry Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion has preferred this appeal – Held, As has been noted earlier claim was sanctioned by State Level Committee in meeting held after all papers were found to be in order - Learned Single Judge rightly noted that on what basis pre-audit team had come to conclusion that claim was made by petitioner is not known - On basis of available materials on record observations recorded by Audit Team in report that petitioner had submitted claim for Central Transport Scheme cannot be held to be correct - If claim was lodged within specific period of time and some documents which were not submitted along with claim is furnished later on after a period of one year it cannot be said that claim itself was lodged beyond prescribed period of time - In instant case we are satisfied that claim was lodged within time however without Income Tax Clearance Certificate which was later on supplied - It is also to be noted that respondents had also disbursed a claim - Appeal is partly allowed.

JUDGMENT

Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.05.2010 passed in W.P.(C) No. 110 (SH) of 2008, allowing the writ petition, whereby, while quashing the letter dated 09.12.2009, issued by the Deputy Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, for short, DIPP, keeping the release of the Transport Subsidies in abeyance until further order, directions were issued to the present appellant as well as the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the writ petition to release the transport subsidies for the period (i) 01.04.1996 to 31.03.1997 and (ii) 1.04.1998 to 04.12.1999, amounting to Rs.6,55,216/- and Rs.6,35,193/-, respectively, to the writ petitioner within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of the judgment with a further direction to the appellant and the respondent No. 5 in the writ petition to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of pre-audit report dated 24.11.2003, till realization of the said transport subsidies for wrongfully withholding the same. Aggrieved, the Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion has preferred this appeal.

2. The case of the writ petitioner, briefly, as set out in the writ petition is that the writ petitioner is the proprietor of "Meghalaya Chemical and Calcinates", a Lime Calcination Plant and is a small scale industry, which was set up in the year 1994. The writ petitioner had availed of loan from Meghalaya Industrial Development Corporation. The writ petitioner, was entitled to Transport Subsidy and from time to time the writ petitioner had prepared and submitted claims on account of, amongst others, Transport Subsidies to the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Jaintia Hills District, Jowai (respondent No. 3 in the writ petition). The writ petitioner received Transport Subsidies for the year 1994-1995, 1995-1996 and 1997-1998. Claim was submitted for the year 1996-1997, which was scrutinised by the State Level Committee set up to scrutinise such claims. The writ petitioner was informed by the Commissioner and Secretary, Industries Department, Government of Meghalaya by a letter dated 08.09.2001 that Transport Subsidy for the period 1996-1997 and from 01.04.1998 to 04.12.1999, amounting to Rs.12,90,409/- was sanctioned and that the writ petitioner may contact the General Manager, North-East Development Finance Corporation Ltd. (respondent No. 4 in the writ petition), which is the disbursing authority. The respondent No. 4, also by a letter dated 16.10.2001, had informed that the claim for Transport Subsidy which was approved by the State Level Committee/District Level Committee was forwarded by the respondent No. 2 for disbursement to the writ petitioner and by the said letter, the writ petitioner was requested to comply with certain directions for early disbursement of the amount. While the matter rested at that, a letter dated 13.01.2003 was received from the respondent No. 2 directing the petitioner to resubmit certain challans and details of expenditure. The writ petitioner by letter dated 28.03.2003 questioned the authority of the respondent No. 2 to ask for the very same documents which were supplied earlier. The writ petitioner had also filed a writ application before this Court which was registered as W.P.(C) No. 190 (SH) of 2003 questioning the inaction of the respondents in not releasing the Transport Subsidy due to the writ petitioner, which, however, came to be dismissed for non-prosecution by an order dated 09.11.2006. There were number of correspondences between the parties and in response to letter dated 29.01.2008 of the writ petitioner, the respondent No. 4 had replied by a letter dated 04.02.2008 informing that the claimed amount of Rs.12,90,409/- was held up because of pre-audit report dated 24.11.2003.

3. The
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top