IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
M/s Topcem India – Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India and Ors - Respondents
WP(C) 6909 of 2015
Decided on : 19-06-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction to the case facts and entitlement under the cciss. (Para 1) |
| 2. overview of central capital investment subsidy scheme (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. details of the subsidy and operational guidelines (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. petitioner's claim and issues raised (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. court's analysis of the obligations and modifications (Para 19 , 20 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. arguments presented by both parties regarding the appropriateness of the subsidy modifications. (Para 21) |
| 7. legal principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation (Para 35 , 37 , 40) |
| 8. final considerations regarding government commitments and the outcome of the case. (Para 36 , 47) |
| 9. final determination and directive for reassessment (Para 41 , 46) |
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. K. Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. R. Adhikari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India and Mr. A. Kalita, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Industries Department of the Government of India.
2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondent authorities in reducing the entitlement on account of Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, 2007 (for short, ‘CCISS, 2007’) has preferred the instant writ petition seeking a direction upon the respondents to cancel, recall and/or otherwise forbear from giving effect to the letter No.9(2)/2012-DBA-II/NER dated 25.02.2013 and the revised operation guidelines bearing No.10(3)/2011-DBA-II/NER(PT-II) dated 07.05.2013 to the extent of specifying eligible and non-eligible components for the purpose of CCISS 2007 in respect to the plant and machinery so far claims for Central Capital Investment Subsidy are submitted prior to the issuance of those communications and also seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to grant the petitioner Central Capital Investment Subsidy at the rate of 30% of the petitioners total investment in plant and machinery in the cement plant as per the guidelines of 2007 etc.
3. The North East Industrial Policy (NEIP), 1997 was announced on 24.12.1997 covering the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura which was valid for a period of 10 years from the date of commercial products by the eligible units. Subsequent thereto, in the year 2007, the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry in the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion had approved the package of fiscal incentive and concession for the North Eastern Region, namely, the North East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy (NEIIPP), 2007 w.e.f. 01.04.2007. For the sake of convenience, the said policy of the year 2007 is hereinafter is referred to as the ‘Industrial Policy, 2007’. In terms with the said Industrial Policy, 2007 all new units as well as existing units which go for substantial expansion, unless otherwise specified and which commence commercial production within the 10 years period from the date of the Notification of the Industrial Policy, 2007 would be eligible for incentive for a period of 10 years from the date of commencement of commercial production.
4. In terms with the said Industrial Policy, 2007, various incentives in the form of exemptions and subsidies were being provided to those eligible units. Amongst the various incentives, one such incentive was the Central Capital Investment Subsidy. In the said Industrial Policy, 2007 itself and more particularly at Clause (VII), it was mentioned that the Capital investment Subsidy would be enhanced from 15% of the investment in plant and machinery to 30% and the limit for automatic approval of subsidy at the said rate would be Rs.1.5 crore per unit, as against Rs.30 lakhs as was available under the NEIP, 1997. In the said Industrial Policy, 2007, it was mentioned that such subsidy shall be available to units in the pr
Shanti Sports Club vs. Union of India
Govind Prasad vs. R. G. Prasad
Kusumem Hotels P. Ltd. vs. Kerala SEB
Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. v. Union of India
Motilal Padmapat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P.
Manuelsons Hotels P. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala & Others
MRF Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner
PDP Steels Ltd. vs. Union India (2018) 4 GauLT 194
State of U.P. vs. Birla Corpn. Ltd.
Sonia vs. Oriental Insurance Co.
State of Jharkhand & Others vs. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd. Ranchi
Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corpn.
The government cannot retroactively change subsidy claims based on later communications that deviate from previously established entitlements, respecting the doctrines of promissory estoppel and legi....
Strict interpretation of subsidy schemes and the burden of proving eligibility lies with the petitioner.
The court upheld the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, ruling that the government must honor its prior subsidy commitments under the Transport Subsidy Scheme despite cance....
The court confirmed that electrical installations essential for plant operations qualify for subsidy under the CCISS, rejecting previous misconceptions about their eligibility.
Point of Law : Notification cannot be construed as having retrospective or retroactive effect to whittle down the accrued rights in favour of the Respondent units which were entitled to rebate.
The doctrine of promissory estoppel does not apply when a government policy is modified in public interest, and entitlement to subsidies is contingent upon meeting specific conditions within the poli....
The central legal principle established is that government authorities must fulfill their obligations to provide promised incentives and establish clear mechanisms for disbursement, ensuring that ben....
A new industrial unit under the industrial policy of 1989 is established if fixed capital investments occur post-effective date, independent from existing units; prior subsidies do not limit new unit....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.