Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
AKIL KURESHI, S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY, JJ.
Sri. Sukhamoy Paul S/o Late Sudhangshu Ranjan Paul – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tripura – Respondent
W.A. No. 17 of 2018
Decided On : 17-05-2021
Scheme - Transportation of raw materials and finished goods to manufacturing industrial units - Petitioner has referred to several other subsidies declared by the Central Government such as, capital investment subsidy, interest subsidy etc. which the petitioner was entitled to but was not granted, before us learned counsel for petitioner had argued only with respect to non-granting of transport subsidy.
Finding of the Court:
Combined reading of clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph-6 of scheme and bearing in mind fact that North Eastern region in entire scheme is referred to as one compact block, would show that transport subsidy for movement of goods and finished products would be available as long as such movement either originates (in case of procurement of raw material) or is transported to (in case of finished goods) outside North Eastern region. As long as such movement either of raw material or finished goods is within region no transport subsidy would be available. For raw materials moving entirely by road or other mode of transport cost will be limited to amount which the industrial unit might have paid had raw materials moved from Siliguri by rail up to railway station nearest to location of industrial unit and thereafter by road. This is one more indication that the subsidy scheme envisages grant of transport subsidy only where there is movement of raw materials or finished goods from outside North Eastern region or from North Eastern region to rest of the country respectively. Transport subsidy would not be available for movement of raw materials as also finished goods as long as movement thereof is confined between two locations both of which are situated in North Eastern region. In present case, even going by case of petitioner raw material was procured from Assam which forms part of North Eastern region for purpose of said scheme.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
AKIL KURESHI, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the original petitioner to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 30.06.2017 passed in WP (C) No. 78 of 2010.
2. Brief facts are as under:
3. The Government of India, Ministry of Industries had framed a Transport Subsidy Scheme under a notification dated 23.07.1971 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Scheme of 1971) which envisaged limited transport subsidy for the cost of transportation of raw materials and finished goods to manufacturing industrial units in the category of small scale industries which are located in certain specified areas including the North Eastern Region comprising of several north eastern states such as, Assam, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Manipur, Tripura and Union Territories of Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram. Such transport subsidy would be available for initial period of 10 years from the date of commencement of production. By a subsequent notification dated 28.07.1993 this period of eligibility of subsidy was reduced to 5 years.
4. Though in the petition the petitioner has referred to several other subsidies declared by the Central Government such as, capital investment subsidy, interest subsidy etc. which the petitioner was entitled to but was not granted, before us learned counsel for the petitioner had argued only with respect to non-granting of the transport subsidy. We have, therefore, focused only on this aspect of the matter.
5. Case of the petitioner is that its unit fulfilled all the requirements of grant of transport subsidy and for which all the documents were supplied to the department despite which such subsidy was not granted and on account of which the petitioner was unable to repay its dues to the secured creditors and faced bankruptcy. The petitioner had, therefore, claimed the benefit of transport subsidy at prescribed rates with interest.
6. The petitioner has produced a letter dated 07.12.2006 written by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Kailashahar to the Director of Industries and Commerce, Government of Tripura in which it is stated that during his visit at the site it was found that the unit was in running condition. On a subsequent visit he had verified all related documents for transport subsidy and found them all correct. He has also stated that the unit used to bring raw materials from the nearby State Assam for the unit up to March, 2006. However, at present the unit does not bring raw materials and it does job work only.
7. The petitioner made several claims for transport subsidy. However, these benefits were not granted. The petitioner thereupon filed the writ petition.
8. The respondents appeared and filed replies in which the stand taken was that the petitioner started functioning without electricity (with D.G. set) and never submitted any document or permission from Pollution Control Board. He thus started the unit without electricity by suppression of facts. After starting the manufacturing activity the petitioner shifted to job work and, therefore, also was not entitled to the transport subsidy. It was contended that since the unit did not undertake any production activity on its own, it lost its industrial character as manufacturing unit and was, therefore, not eligible for transport subsidy since under the scheme definition of “industrial unit” means an industrial unit where manufacturing programme is carried on. It is contended that in order to av
Grant of transport subsidy - Requirements - Court not find that subsidy scheme covers such a situation. Court have reproduced relevant portion of scheme. The term “selected area” is defined as to inc....
Claims for transport subsidy under the Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971 should be processed without undue delay, and rejections based on administrative lapses are not permissible.
The doctrine of promissory estoppel does not apply when a government policy is modified in public interest, and entitlement to subsidies is contingent upon meeting specific conditions within the poli....
The court upheld the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, ruling that the government must honor its prior subsidy commitments under the Transport Subsidy Scheme despite cance....
Late filing of a writ petition regarding previously settled claims prohibits reconsideration, reaffirming the principle of finality in administrative decisions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of a claim for transport subsidy cannot be solely based on the ground of being time-barred, especially when the scheme itself do....
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
