Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited through its authorized signatory Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary – Respondent
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
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.
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.
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....
The State is bound by its promises under the Industrial Policy, and failure to issue enabling notifications for incentives constitutes arbitrary action, invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
The principle of estoppel prevents authorities from withdrawing subsidies once granted, especially when businesses have acted on the original policy.
Subsequent amendments to the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy do not apply retrospectively, and promised incentives must be honored for the entire entitlement period.
Existing units commencing production before new industrial policy but not availing prior incentives eligible under amended transitional Clause 8(b); prior clearances create vested rights invoking pro....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
