SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 170

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited through its authorized signatory Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary and ors. - Respondents
W. P. (C) No. 5477 of 2021, W. P. (C) No. 5544 of 2021
Decided On : 14-02-2025

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M/s Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate, Shilpi Sandilya Gadodia, Ritesh Gupta, Prakhar Harit, K. Hari, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Shray Mishra, AC to Advocate General, Ms. Komal Tiwari, AC to Advocate General

The absence of a cut-off date in the Special Mega Package allows entitlement to incentives regardless of the commercial production start date relative to the previous policy's expiry.

Headnote:(A) Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001 - Special Package for Mega Industries, 2003 - Claims for subsidy - Petitioner entitled to subsidy under the Special Package, 2003, as production commenced post-policy; timing of commercial production disputed. (Paras 2-8)

(B) Legal principles - Incentives cannot be denied if investment was made under original policy; absence of cut-off date in Special Package shall prevail. (Paras 10-12)

(C) Promissory estoppel - State must act fairly and uphold promises made under policies. (Paras 21-22)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner claims defaulted incentives totaling Rs.162 Crores for VAT, CST, and capital investment due under Jharkhand Industrial policy, alleging wrong application of the subsequent Industrial Policy, 2012.

Findings of Court:
Special Mega Package does not have a cut-off date, making the petitioner entitled to subsidies despite production commencing after the expiration of the 2001 Policy.

Issues: Main question was whether incentives under the Industrial Policy, 2001 or 2012 applied, given the commercial production date.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the absence of a cut-off date in the Special Mega Package implies entitlement to incentives and dilutes the application's legal timeframe restrictions placed by later policies, thereby ensuring fairness.

Result: The matter referred to a larger bench for resolution.

Table of Content
1. claims for subsidies initiated under expired policies require adherence to initial promises. (Para 1)
2. claims for subsidy under industrial policies. (Para 2 , 3)
3. details of subsidy claims and grievances. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 11)
4. contested application of policies and incentives. (Para 10 , 12 , 13)
5. respondents' defense on applicable policies. (Para 14 , 15)
6. incentives cannot be denied based on interpretations of production timelines. (Para 16)
7. analysis of industrial policy effectiveness. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
8. court's reasoning regarding promise and cutoff dates. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)

JUDGMENT :

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

1. Since both the aforesaid Writ Petitions raise similar issues, therefore, they are heard together and will be disposed of by common order.

2. Petitioners claim subsidy on the basis of Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001 under the Scheme known as Special Package for Mega Industries, 2003.

3. W.P.(C) No.5477 of 2021 has been filed for a direction to the respondent-authorities for paying the deficit VAT/ CST to the tune of Rs.162 Crores which has not been paid as per the Industrial Policy, 2001 read with Special Package, 2003 for mega industries.

Whereas W.P.(C) No.5544 of 2021 has been filed for payment of Capital investment subsidy of about Rs.4 Crores under the same scheme.

CASE OF THE PETITIONER

4. Petitioner’s claim under the Industrial Policy, 2001 are under following heads, namely, (i) Reimbursement of VAT subsidy of 75% on fixed capital investment for the period of April to June 2017; (b) Subsidy of 100% on SGST from July 2017 to March 2019 (which came into force on 1.7.2017) and; (iii) CST subsidy on fixed capital investment for a period of 7 years in terms of Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001.

5. Petitioner company is a manufacturing unit of Cement and started its commercial production from its unit situated at Bokaro from 20.05.2011. The claim hinges upon Industrial Policy, 2001 read with Scheme for Mega Unit and Project Incentive Rule, 2005. The salient features of the said Scheme can be summed up as under :-

(a) The Government of Jharkhand on 10.06.2003 vide Memorandum No.1885 formulated a scheme known as “Special Package for Mega Industries”, which inter-alia provided for capital investment incentive of Rs.4 Crores for industrial unit Category A at 5% of the fixed capital investment with a maximum amount of Rs.4 crores;

(b) Amount equivalent to 75% of the commercial taxes so received from the unit in a financial year to be payable to the unit in the form of capital investment incentive for the next financial year. Incentive to be paid with effect from the date of commencement of commercial production for Category-A. It was applicable for 7 years subject to maximum limit of capital investment incentive of75% of the total fixed capital investment made by the unit of this category up to the date of commercial production. As per the Policy, Bokaro Cement Unit comes under Category-A.

(c) Under Clause 29.11 of the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001, special packages for new projects with an investment of more than Rs.50 Crores on case-to-case basis was provided.

6. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the subsidies have been released in favour of the Petitioner as per the Industrial Policy, 2012 and not as per Special Mega Package, 2003. Petitioner has been paid Rs.163.45 Crores as per Industrial Policy, 2012 and have been deprived of the incentive as per the Special Mega Package, 2003. Loss is tabulated as under :-

Sl. No.TypeAmount (in Crores)
(a)VAT/ SGSTRs. 161.22
(b)CST SubsidyRs. 1.20
(c)Capital SubsidyRs. 4.00

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner(s) that the commercial industrial production started from May, 2011, however it has not been disputed by the State that the production had started from December, 2011.

8. The Industrial Policy, 2001 read with the Special Mega Package, 2003 was followed up to 31st March, 2011. Respondent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top