Back
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Motorola Mobility (Chennai) Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited – Respondent
ORDER :
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records contained in letter bearing Ref: P-IV/SAP/Motorola/IPS/105/2008 dated March 17, 2021, and all letters, orders, and notices issued consequent thereto, including letter bearing Ref. ID/SAP/Motorola/IPS/105/2008 dated September 1, 2021 issued by Respondent No. 1, and to quash the same as arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable, and illegal, and to consequentially direct the Respondents to grant the benefit of the 'Investment Promotion Subsidy' to the Petitioner by reimbursing the Petitioner with the amount of VAT and CST paid by the Petitioner during the period from February 1, 2008 to January 31, 2013 as verified, and endorsed by Respondent No.3., and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary and thus render justice.
The facts of the case are summarized as follows: Motorola India Private Limited (MIPL) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the MoU) with the Government of Tamil Nadu/second respondent on 07.06.2006 to invest USD 30 million for establishing a manufacturing f
Government departments must not penalize applicants for delays caused by inter-departmental inefficiencies; genuine justifications for late submissions should be carefully considered.
Claims for refund of excise duty under Section 11B must be filed within one year; reversal of CENVAT credit to obtain exemption does not constitute a mistake of law, thus refund claims beyond this li....
Point of law: the law declared by the highest court in the State is binding on authorities or Tribunals under its superintendence, and that they cannot ignore it either in initiating proceeding or de....
The limitation period for refund claims under the Central Excise Act can be adjusted based on the time spent before an incorrect authority.
Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit due to closure is not permitted under Section 11B(2)(c) post 01.04.2012 amendments.
The main legal point established is that the entitlement to subsidies under the WBSSIS-2008 should be determined based on the specific provisions of the Scheme, and the refusal of subsidies based on ....
Subsequent amendments to the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy do not apply retrospectively, and promised incentives must be honored for the entire entitlement period.
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
