IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
STAR CEMENT LIMITED – Petitioner
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP (C) No. 7017 of 2013
Decided On : 28-06-2024
TRANSPORT SUBSIDY - Cement Manufacturing and Subsidy Claims - Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971; North East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy, 2007; Freight Subsidy Scheme, 2013 - The court analyzed the legal framework surrounding the Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971, which provided subsidies for transportation of raw materials and finished goods to promote industrial growth in the North East region. The NEIIPP, 2007 reiterated the continuation of the Transport Subsidy Scheme, but the Freight Subsidy Scheme, 2013 replaced it, placing Fly Ash in a negative list, thus denying the subsidy. The court interpreted that the petitioner could not claim the subsidy as the commercial production commenced after the scheme's expiration, emphasizing the government's right to modify policies in public interest.
JUDGMENT :
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
1. Heard Dr. A. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P. K. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Dy. SGI for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is a cement manufacturing company and prays that the petitioner should be given transport subsidy for transportation of Fly Ash under the Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971 read with North East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy (NEIIPP), 2007. Further, the Freight Subsidy Scheme, 2013 which was introduced, vide Notification dated 22.01.2013 should be declared inoperative against the petitioner, as the subsidy given for fly ash was done away with in the Freight Subsidy Scheme, 2013. The petitioner’s case is that with a view to promote industries in the North Eastern region of India, unveiled the North East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy, hereinafter referred to as the NEIIPP, 2007, which was to be effective from 01.04.2007 for 10 years. The Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971 ended on 22.01.2013, while the petitioner commenced commercial production of cement from 31.01.2013.
3. The petitioner’s case is that keeping in view the Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971 and the NEIIPP, 2007, the petitioner established his cement manufacturing company with an eye to avail the benefits of various subsidies, one of them being transport subsidy given for transporting Fly Ash. In terms of Clause (ii) “Duration” of the Office Memorandum No. 10(3)/2007-DBA-II/NER dated 01.04.2007 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, i.e. NEIIPP, 2007, “All new units as well as existing units which go in for substantial expansion, unless otherwise specified and which commence commercial production within the 10 year period from the date of notification of NEIIPP, 2007 will be eligible for incentives for a period of ten years from the date of commencement of commercial production.” Clause (xiv) of the OM dated 01.04.2007 pertains to Transport Subsidy Scheme and states that “the Transport Subsidy Scheme would continue beyond 31.03.2007, on the same terms and conditions. However, an early evaluation of the scheme will be carried out with a view to introducing necessary safeguards to prevent possible leakages and misuse.”
4. The petitioner’s cement manufacturing unit located at Chamta Pathar, Sonapur, Kamrup District, Assam was ready to start production in the 3rd quarter of the year 2012, but the commercial production was delayed on account of electricity issues with the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL). Though the petitioner had finished the entire infrastructure for the cement manufacturing unit and was ready to start commercial production in the year 2012, commercial production of cement could only commence from 31.01.2013, i.e. 9 days after the validity of the Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971 expired.
5. The Freight Subsidy Scheme, 2013 which replaced the earlier Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971 came into effect from 22.01.2013 when it was published in the Official Gazette. In the new Freight Subsidy Scheme, 2013, Fly Ash, for which subsidy was earlier payable under the Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971, was now included in the negative list. Accordingly, no transport subsidy could be given for Fly Ash in terms of the Freight Subsidy Scheme, 2013, which came into effect from 22.01.2013.
6. The petitioner’s counsel submits that all the resources of the petitioner had been used for establishing the cement manufacturing unit, to avail various Central/State subsidies for establishing industries in the North East Region, with one eye being trained on the transportation subsidy to be given for Fly Ash under the Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971. He submits that in terms of Clause (ii) of the O.M. dated 01.04.2007, a new unit which commences commercial production within 10 years from the date of Notification of the NEIIPP, 2007 would be eligible for ince
Balco Employees' Union v. Union of India
Hero Motocorp Limited vs. Union of India and Others
Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. (1979) 2 SCC 409
Shrijee Sales Corporation vs. Union of India
Sidhbali Steels Limited vs. State of U.P. (2011) 3 SCC 193
State of Bihar vs. Suprabhatt Steel Ltd. (1999) 1 SCC 31
State of Jharkhand vs. TATA Cummin Ltd. (2006) 4 SCC 57
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 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....
Grant of transport subsidy - Requirements - Court not find that subsidy scheme covers such a situation. Court have reproduced relevant portion of scheme. The term “selected area” is defined as to inc....
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....
Claims for transport subsidy under the Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971 should be processed without undue delay, and rejections based on administrative lapses are not permissible.
Late filing of a writ petition regarding previously settled claims prohibits reconsideration, reaffirming the principle of finality in administrative decisions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of a claim for transport subsidy cannot be solely based on the ground of being time-barred, especially when the scheme itself do....
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.