M/S. Modi Tea and Industries Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India and 4 Ors

ORDER

04.01.2023 Heard Shri GN Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel along with Shri K. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. P. Neog, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri K. Gogoi, learned CGC for the respondent no. 1 whereas Shri A. Kalita, learned Standing Counsel for the Industries and Commerce Department, Government of Assam.

¶2The petitioner has put to challenge the minutes of meeting held on 25.01.2018 whereby their claim for the benefits under the North East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy 2007 (hereinafter called NEIIPP) has been rejected. The petitioner claims to have fulfilled the requirement to avail the benefits of the said policy and has invested more than 25% in plant and machinery, however, by the impugned decision, in a cryptic manner, the claim has been rejected. Page No.# 3/4

¶3Before going to the merits of the dispute and the respective cases of the rival parties, this Court is informed that in the meantime, a series of similar cases were taken up by this Court wherein the said matters have been remanded to the competent authority to take a fresh decision in view of certain developments.

¶4To state the facts of the case in brief, the petitioner is in the business of manufacturing black tea and has its unit at Bagmorial Gaon, Charaideo in the district of Sivasagar which was established in the year 1985. Pursuant to the aforesaid policy, the petitioner company had made substantial expansion meeting the requirement by which the benefits of the said policy was to be availed. In this connection, the petitioner had filed its detail claim in Form 1-C which was received on 16.03.2017. However, as mentioned above, vide the minutes of meeting dated 25.01.2018 the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. While making the rejection, it has been stated that though the unit has claimed to have invested more than 25% in plant and machinery for expansion, it is not corroborated and supported by the increase of Production, Power, Annual Turnover and Production return, as submitted to the Tea Board. The learned Senior Counsel submits that such considerations are wholly irrelevant as the scheme stipulates that expansion by 25% of plant and machinery itself would be enough to avail the benefits of the said scheme.

¶5On the other hand, Shri Kalita, learned Standing Counsel, Industries & Commerce Department has submitted that the factors which have been taken into consideration are germane and relevant by which the actual assessment of the expansion can be made. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the parties have submitted that similar situated entities had approached the Central Government as the policy was of the Central Government. In those representations, a direction for re-consideration has been made pursuant to which orders have been passed by this Court remanding the matters for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

¶6In view of the above, while setting aside the impugned decision dated Page No.# 4/4

25.01.2018, the matter is remanded to the appropriate authority, namely, the respondent no. 3, the State Level Committee represented by the Commissioner of Industry and Commerce, Assam cum Member Secretary to reconsider the claim of the petitioner. While doing so, the State Level Committee would strictly abide by the guidelines of the Policy of 2007. The aforesaid consideration may be made in the next sitting of the State Level Committee and the same be disposed of by speaking order to be informed to the petitioner.

¶7Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010263612019 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/7969/2019o M/S.oMODIoTEAoANDoINDUSTRIESoPVT.oLTD.o AoPRIVATEoLIMITEDoCOMPANYoINCORPORATEDoUNDERoTHEoCOMPANIESo ACTo1956,oHAVINGoITSoREGISTEREDoOFFICEoAToJALANoNAGAR,o DIBRUGARH,oASSAMoANDoISoREPRESENTEDoBYoITSoDIRECTORoSHRIo SUNILoMODI,oAGEDoABOUTo57oYEARS,oSONoOFoLATEoRAMoGOPALoMODI,o RESIDENToOFoKHALIAMARI,oBORPUKHURI,oDIBRUGARH-o786001oINoTHEo DISTRICToOFoDIBRUGARH,oASSAM. VERSUSo UNIONoOFoINDIAoANDo4oORS.o REPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVERNMENToOFoINDIA,o MINISTRYoOFoCOMMERCEoANDoINDUSTRY,oDEPARTMENToOFoINDUSTRIAL POLICYoANDoPROMOTION,oUDYOGoBHAWAN,oNEWoDELHI. 2:STATEoLEVELoCOMMITTEEo(SLC) oREPRESENTEDoBYoADDITIONALoDIRECTORo(FP)oANDoMEMBERo SECRETARY oSLCoOFFICEoOFoTHEoCOMMISSIONERoOFoINDUSTRYoANDoCOMMERCEo UDYOGoBHAWAN oBAMUNIMAIDAN oGUWAHATI-21. 3:THEoCOMMISSIONERoOFoINDUSTRYoANDoCOMMERCE oASSAMoCUMoMEMBERoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoSTATEoLEVELoCOMMITTEE o(SLC) oOFFICEoOFoTHEoCOMMISSIONERoOFoINDUSTRYoANDoCOMMERCEoUDYOGo BHAWAN oBAMUNIMAIDAN oGUWAHATI-21. 4:THEoGENERALoMANAGER Page No.# 2/4 DISTRICT INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE CENTRE SIVASAGAR OFFICE OF THE GENERAL MANAGER DISTRICT INDUSTRY COMMERCE CENTRE SIVSAGAR ASSAM. 5:TEA BOARD OF INDIA 14 B T M SARANI KOLKATA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN TEA BOARD OF INDIA 14 B T M SARANI KOLKATA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. G N SAHEWALLA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S C KEYAL (A.S.G.I, (R-1)) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI