ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : -03-2024

1. Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner/M/s Essel Lubricants and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.

has filed the present writ application for a direction to the respondent/authorities to pay a sum of Rs. 17.79 lacs towards reimbursement of value added tax for the year 2012-13 till 2014-15 under the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy of 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 2006 Policy). By way of I.A. No. 1 of 2022, the petitioner has sought quashing of the letter no. 649 dated 27.08.2001 whereby respondent no. 6 has communicated that the petitioner does not have the approval of district level Single Window Clearance Committee/State Investment Promotion Board.

3. Brief facts involved in the case are that the Bihar government published 2006 Policy for increasing the industrial growth of the State and to revive the sick and closed unit by creating favourable environment to attract domestic and foreign investment. As per Clause 2 (vi) read with Clause 10 of the Policy, new units which commence the commercial production within five years from 01.04.2006 were given the incentive of 80% of reimbursement against the admitted VAT amount deposited by the unit in the account of the State Government. This facility was made available for a period of ten years. The petitioner, on the basis of promise made under the Policy, setup a manufacturing unit of refined petroleum products for which production commenced on 01.07.2008. Vide letter no. 546, dated 31.07.2010 (Annexure 1), the petitioner was issued eligibility certificate under the 2006 Policy by the General Manager, District Industrial Centre, Aurangabad, certifying that the petitioner/company is eligible to receive reimbursement of 80% of VAT paid under the 2006 Policy.

4. For the financial year 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15, the petitioner applied for reimbursement of a sum of Rs. 17,493/-, Rs. 9,50,600/-, Rs. 9,07,022/-, Rs. 9,28,077/-, Rs. 7,11,502/-, total amounting to Rs. 35,14,694/- under the 2006 Policy, out of which, reimbursement of Rs. 9,67,590/- for the financial year 2010-11, 2011-12 was paid to the petitioner against reimbursement of the VAT amount which is 80% of the total admitted tax paid by the petitioner.

5. For the financial year 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15, against the total amount of Rs. 26,94,442/-, the petitioner has been paid only Rs. 9,14,606/-. The balance amount of Rs. 17,79,836/- has not been paid for which the petitioner has filed a representation before the Commercial Tax Department but did not receive any response.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that after coming into force the 2006 Policy, the petitioner/company set up a manufacturing unit of refined petroleum and in terms of the policy, commenced production on 01.07.2008 i.e., within five years from the cut of date i.e., 01.04.2006. The petitioner/unit was fully covered by the 2006 Policy, as such, it was eligible for 80% VAT reimbursement. Vide Annexure 1, the respondent/authorities duly declared the petitioner/unit eligible for 80% VAT reimbursement. The authorities also accepted the claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of 80% VAT amount and paid the same for financial year 2010-11, 2011-12.

7. In the supplementary counter affidavit, dated 01.09.2021, the respondent/authorities, for the first time, took a specious plea that petitioner does not have the approval of District Level Single Window Clearance Committee/S.I.P.B. The petitioner/company, on the basis of promise made in the Industrial Policy, established the manufacturing unit, changed its position. Now, the 80% of VAT reimbursement is being denied firstly on the plea of not having the approval of District Level Single Window Committee and secondly, that in 2011, a new Industrial Policy has come into force under which the petitioner/company is entitled for 25% of VAT reimbursement only.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/state argued that in 2011, new Industrial Policy came into e