JUDGMENT :

The extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India is sought to be invoked by filing this writ petition pertaining to an order dated 20.09.2013 by which certain grievances of the petitioner were considered and closed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Industries & Commerce Department. The petitioner alleges that the aforesaid order has been passed in a cryptic and mechanical manner. The issue is regarding exemption under an Industrial Policy.

2. Before going to the issue involved, it would be convenient to state the facts in brief:

3. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company which was incorporated in the year 1995 and had set up a cement factory in the NC Hills District (presently, Dima Hasao). The Industry was set up by availing the benefits of the Industrial Policy of 1986 which was from 01.01.1987. Subsequently, the Industrial Policy of 1991 came into force which provided for revival of viable sick industrial units. It is the case of the petitioner company that it had suffered because of serious breakdown of law and order and was not able to submit the financial returns and accordingly, a reference was submitted to the BIFR (Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction) under Section 15 of the SICA [Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act] 1985 for declaring the petitioner company as a “Sick Company”. Accordingly, the BIFR in its meeting dated 25.11.1997 had declared the petitioner company as a “Sick Unit” and IFCI was appointed as the Operating Agency. Accordingly, IFCI had prepared the Draft Rehabilitation Scheme (DRS).

4. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of the same, the dues with the Financial Institutions were settled and the DRS incorporated incentives under the 1991 Policy. Unfortunately, the benefit of the said Policy was not extended to the petitioner company. It is a case of the petitioner that the Industries Department of the State had informed the Operating Agency vide letter dated 13.03.1998 regarding the continuation of the benefit to the petitioner company. However, later, the State Government had a stand that the 1991 benefits would not be available to the petitioner as it was declared sick by the BIFR only on 25.11.1997 by which, the 1997 Policy had already come into force.

5. On 14.06.2000, a meeting was held amongst all parties in which it was revealed that the application dated 02.01.1997 which was submitted by the petitioner was yet to be considered. Accordingly, it was resolved that a fresh application be submitted to the Director of Industries which would be processed for examination and consideration for declaring the unit as a Relief Undertaking by the Government of Assam.

6. Accordingly, on 25.01.2001 all necessary papers were submitted. However, from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2012, the petitioner company claims to have paid Rs.100.06 Lacs including input credit. However, there was no final decision by the Government of Assam constraining the petitioner to file WP(C)/8306/2001.

7. The aforesaid writ petition was considered by a Division Bench and vide order dated 28.01.2013 had disposed of the matter by directing the State respondents to take a final decision by passing a reasoned order. In compliance to the aforesaid order dated 28.01.2013, the Government of Assam had passed an order dated 20.09.2013. It is the validity and legality of this order which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

8. I have heard Shri P. Mahanta, learned for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri A. Kalita, learned Standing Counsel, Industries & Commerce Department as well as Shri B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Taxation Department.

9. Shri Mahanta, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the period after expiry of the exemption till the petitioner had become sick, the petitioner was given an impression that the Government of Assam was considering extension of the exemption from Sales Tax. In this connection, the