Mohammad Rafiq, J.

1. M/s. Ultratech Cement Limited and its Senior General Manager have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 12.03.2018 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur with the prayer that revised entitlement certificate dated 02.04.2018 granted pursuant to the decision of the State Level Screening Committee (for short ‘the SLSC’) dated 28.03.2018 be quashed and set aside and consequential order dated 04.04.2018 demanding amount of Rs. 15,96,37,794/- with interest in the sum of Rs. 17,18,33,816/- be quashed and set aside. The petitioners have also challenged constitutional validity of Clause 13 of the Rajasthan Invest Promotion Scheme-2013 (for short ‘the RIPS-2003’) with the prayer that the same be declared arbitrary, unconstitutional, illegal, bad in law and null and void, being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner is a public limited company incorporated and registered under Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of cement and allied products. Clause 13 of the RIPS-2003 empowers the State Government in its Finance Department to suo motu or otherwise revise an order passed by any Screening Committee wherever it is found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the State revenue, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the beneficiary industrial unit. The Additional Chief Secretary, Finance, Government of Rajasthan invoked that provision and revised orders dated 17.03.2011 and 17.10.2011 passed by the SLSC whereby the petitioner-company was granted investment subsidy of 75%. By impugned order dated 12.03.2018 it was held that the petitioner-company is entitled to investment subsidy of maximum 50% of the amount payable or deposited by the Unit under Clause 7(i)(a) of the RIPS-2003. As a consequence of the revisional order dated 12.03.2018, the entitlement certificate dated 29.04.2011 granted subsequent to the SLSC meeting dated 17.03.2011 and the revised entitlement certificate dated 24.11.2011 granted subsequent to the SLSC meeting dated 17.10.2011, were also cancelled and the SLSC was directed to issue fresh entitlement certificate granting 50% subsidy to the unit.

3. We have heard Mr. S. Ganesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners; Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents-State Government and Mr. R.B. Mathur, learned counsel appearing on behalf respondent-Commercial Taxes Department.

4. Mr. S. Ganesh, learned Senior Counsel argued that the Board of Infrastructure Development and Investment Promotion (for short ‘the BIDI’) under Clause 7(i)(a) and 7(i)(b) of the RIPS-2003 was fully competent to grant sales tax subsidy up to 75% to a new industrial unit with a capital investment of over Rs. 400 crores. This 75% subsidy consisted of only wage subsidy and interest subsidy and did not include any upfront subsidy. The RIPS was amended on 02.12.2005 to introduce a new package of sales tax subsidy at 75% for new cement units with a total investment of more than Rs. 400 crores under Clause 7(vi) of the RIPS-2003. The subsidy could be granted only by the SLSC and not by the BIDI and 75% subsidy included 45% upfront subsidy and the wage/interest subsidy was only 30% and not 75% as per Clause 7(i)(b) of the RIPS-2003. The BIDI in its meeting held on 01.04.2006 held that the recently announced cement package in RIPS 2003 will be applicable to the petitioner-company. It was thus crystal clear that the BIDI had granted to the petitioner 75% sales tax subsidy, which was the recently announced cement package. The petitioners entered into an MOU with the respondent-State during Resurgent Rajasthan Partnership Summit in which the petitioner-company undertook to set up a new cement plant at Kotputli with a capacity of 4 million tons per annum. Clause 7(iii) of the RIPS-20