Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 45339
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
GRACIOUS A.RATHAPPILLIL – Appellant
Versus
GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ERNAKULAM – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 27629 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)
For the Respondents: SRI.DHEERAJ A.S, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
Assistance under Entrepreneur Support Scheme cannot be denied solely for lack of tax invoices for fabricated machinery when guidelines allow for valuation certifications.
Headnote:(A) Entrepreneur Support Scheme Guidelines - Valuation Certificate - The petitioner, engaged in bee-keeping and honey processing, sought financial assistance under the Entrepreneur Support Scheme claiming Rs.7,22,337/-; sanctioned only Rs.89,850/- due to lack of tax invoicing for machinery costs - Court observed that the guidelines permit fabricated machinery with a valuation certificate. Thus, the rejection of the claim for non-production of tax invoices was arbitrary and against the Scheme's provisions. (Paras 5, 15, 16)
(B) Procedure for Assistance - The court emphasized that assistance should not be denied based on the absence of tax bills for fabricated machinery under the Entrepreneur Support Scheme, which allows for such provisions. (Paras 5, 15, 16)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim for financial assistance under entrepreneur support scheme. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. rejection based on purported lack of valid tax invoices. (Para 6 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. defense against the claim of the respondents. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's analysis on the right to assistance and arbitrary rejection. (Para 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is a Bee-Keeper / Apiary worker. Apart from Bee-Keeping, the petitioner is collecting honey and beeswax from the Bee-Keepers in the nearby areas. The petitioner is running an industrial unit to process honey in the name ‘G.A.R Industries’ at Kalloorkad.
2. The petitioner states that the 3rd respondent-
State Level Committee for Investment Support under Entrepreneur Support Scheme has introduced Ext.P6 Scheme intending to provide financial assistance to micro, small and medium enterprises engaged in manufacturing activities in the State. The petitioner applied for investment support under Ext.P6 Scheme claiming financial assistance of Rs.7,22,337/-.
3. The petitioner states that Ext.P7 application was placed before the District Level Committee. As per Ext.P9, the District Level Committee sanctioned only an amount of Rs.89,850/- to the petitioner as investment support. The remaining amount in the claim of the petitioner of Rs.7,22,337/- was rejected.
4. On enquiry, the petitioner was informed that cost of plant and machinery assembled in the house to the tune of Rs.7,94,700/- was without valuation certification of the Chartered Engineer. The petitioner points out that the machinery purchased by the petitioner was assembled with technical assistance of Premier Metal Industries, Shornoor. The petitioner has spent more than Rs.6.15 lakhs for installing the machinery. The petitioner filed an appeal against the rejection. The appeal was rejected as per Ext.P14. In Ext.P14, the appellate authority has stated that though bill has been produced from the Premier Metal Industries, the said bill is not a tax bill and therefore, the same cannot be considered.
The petitioner challenges Exts.P9 and P14.
5. According to the petitioner, the Entrepreneur Support Scheme (ESS) Guidelines specifically permit installation of fabricated machinery. It is stated in Clause 34 of the Guidelines that fabricated machinery shall be supported by a Valuation Certificate of a Mechanical Engineer not below the rank of an Assistant Executive Engineer of Government Department (Industries, PWD, LSGD, Irrigation etc.) or a Chartered Engineer, Institution of Engineers India / Approved Valuer of Institution of Valuers, India. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P11 Valuation Certificate. Therefore, even in the absence of tax invoice, the claim of the petitioner for Rs.7,22,337/- is liable to be considered.
6. The 1st respondent entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The 1st respondent submitted that the industrial unit of the petitioner has submitted application for Investment Support under ESS claiming financial assistance to the tune of Rs.7,22,337/-. The application was placed before the District Level Committee consisting of the District Collector as Chairman, Lead District Manager, representative of Finance Department in Government, District Manager Kerala Financial Corporation, representative of KSSIA District Committee and General Manager of District Industries Centre, Ernakulam as Member Secretary.
7. The District Level Committee sanctioned an amount of Rs.89,850/- on 04.08.2021. The balance claim was denied on the ground of "no valid GST invoice" submitted for machinery worth Rs.6,15,000/-. Eligible investment is computed based on the Physical verification of plant and machinery / Tax invoices and value involved in tax bills/ Payment proof whichever is minimum. The 1st respondent submits that even though it is not specifically mentioned in the ESS guidelines, Tax invoices are only considered for the computation of eligible investment and other financial and physical scenarios of unit entrepre
