JUDGMENT :

Deepak Roshan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner has filed the instant writ application primarily praying therein for the following reliefs:-

(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Declaration, declaring that amendment carried out vide Notification dated 7th March, 2019 (Annexure-4) by the Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand to Clause 7.5 of The Jharkhand Industrial Investment and Promotion Policy, 2016 (for short ‘Policy of 2016’), wherein an ‘Explanation’ has been inserted to define the term ‘State GST paid on Intrastate sale subject to tax realization in the State Government Treasury’ in alleged exercise of power under Clause 10.7 of the Policy of 2016, has an effect of imposing additional restriction and/or condition nullifying the effect of the Policy of 2016 and is, thus, wholly without jurisdiction and beyond the power of the Department of Industries which is only entitled under Clause 10.7 to lay down guidelines and/or issue statutory Notification for giving effect to the provisions of the Policy.

(ii) In alternative to prayer (i) above, Petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction including Writ of Declaration declaring that purported amendment carried out under Clause 7.5 (aa)(v) of The Jharkhand Industrial Investment and Promotion Policy, 2016 vide Notification 7th March, 2019 (Annexure-4) wherein an ‘Explanation’ has been inserted to define the term ‘State GST paid on Intrastate sale subject to tax realization in the State Government Treasury’ to the extent in the inserted Explanation it has been provided that if any Input Tax Credit is claimed on the goods supplied by the Unit by any subsequent taxable person, then SGST paid on such goods shall not be eligible for reimbursement, is wholly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the principles of Legitimate Expectations and Promissory Estoppel, as by insertion of the aforesaid Explanation, the entire benefit of subsidy/incentive on GST provided under the Industrial Policy of 2016 has been rendered nugatory and not applicable to the Petitioner’s Industry.

(iii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing/setting aside the decision contained in Memo No 393 dated 17.02.2023 (Annexure-15) of the High Power Committee headed by the Chief Secretary of Jharkhand, wherein it has been decided that Petitioner-Unit is not eligible for grant of SGST subsidy as per existing Standard Operating Procedure (for short ‘SOP’) issued by Commercial Taxes Department, Jharkhand and, accordingly, decision was taken to keep the decision of the High Powered Committee dated 6th January, 2022 in abeyance by which subsidy of Rs. 53,17,97,670/-, as SGST subsidy was sanctioned in favour of the Petitioner.

(iv) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing/setting aside Letter dated 13.12.2022 (Annexure-16) issued by Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department (Respondent No.8) to the extent it relates to the Petitioner-Unit, wherein it has been communicated to Director of Industries (Respondent No.3) that Petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of SGST subsidy under the Policy of 2016.

(v) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to immediately and forthwith release the amount of GST subsidy under the Policy of 2016 to the Petitioner-Unit for the period 2017-18 to 2022-23 amounting to Rs.117,13,33,199/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the due date of payment of said subsidy amount till the date of actual payment, especially in view of the fact that Petitioner is entitled for grant of said subsidy, as it is fulfilling all eligibility criteria under the Policy of 2016.

3. Facts of the case in short, as evident from the instant writ application, are that the State