The State of Tripura and Anr v. Sri Sajib Saha and Anr

Judgment & order Whether fit for reporting :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT Judgment & Order (Oral)

Heard Mr. D. Sharma, Learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the appellants and Ms. S. Deb Gupta, Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. B. Majumder, Learned DSGI appearing for the respondent No.2.

¶02This present writ appeal has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and order dated

12.01.2021 passed by the Learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 1337 of 2017.

¶03The brief fact is that the petitioner-respondent prayed the reliefs viz. the respondent be directed to act strictly in accordance with NEIIPP which shall remain in force till 31.03.2017. It has been urged further that the benefit that the petitioner is entitled to, under the Notification No.F.DI/TIS/SUB/4-2(21)/2006/P-III/13165-274 dated 23.07.2015 of Tripura Industrial Investment Promotion Incentives Scheme, 2012 be released forthwith. The petitioner on

25.08.2014 made a request to the General Manager, District Industries Centre, West Tripura seeking to grant a subsidy on land and for construction of the industry (shed) since the petitioner has made the arrangement of the plant and machinery.

¶04According to the respondent-petitioner he is covered by the aforesaid scheme of 2012 for getting the incentives or benefits on the fixed capital investment inasmuch as the said scheme provides that all eligible enterprises will be entitled to an incentive at the rate of 30% (subsequently modified to 25%) of the fixed capital investment, subject to an aggregate ceiling of Rs.50 lacs in each enterprise. The sole proprietorship units belonging to ST, SC and Women individuals or the partnership business where all the partners belong to ST, SC and women will be eligible for an additional subsidy at the rate of 2.5% on fixed capital investment, subject to an aggregate ceiling of Rs.50 lacs per enterprise provided that wherever on when an enterprise is eligible for the

capital investment subsidy under NEIIPP-2007, the amount of subsidy to be provided under this clause shall stand reduced to the extent of subsidy entitlement under NEIIPP-2007. But this provision has been modified subsequently by publishing a notification. The enterprise shall have to mandatorily apply for the subsidy under NEIIPP-2007.

¶05The respondents have not taken any decision upon the request made by the petitioner seeking subsidy of the land. The contention of the respondents i.e. the appellants herein that since the capital investment subsidy as provided under the NEIIPP 2007 is higher than 50 lakhs, no further incentive or benefit under the Scheme, 2012 can be allowed to the petitioner i.e. the respondent herein.

¶06The Union of India-respondent have submitted that whatever the petitioner was entitled to under the NEIIPP 2007, has been disbursed and on that aspect, the petitioner does not have any grievance against them The petitioner's grievance is confined to the benefits under the said scheme, 2012.

¶07It is seen from the record that earlier writ petition was filed before the impugned notification dated 23.07.2015. The Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition directing the respondents i.e the petitioners herein to make the due inquiry for determining the quantum of subsidy within the framework of the NEIIPP and the Scheme, 2012 and release the incentive/benefit to the petitioners in two instalments.

¶08Learned counsel for the appellant have urged before this court that as per scheme incentive is available on capital

investment as on the date of commercial production started. Eligibility of an unity for availing subsidy is bounded by the guidelines and conditions stipulated under the scheme, 2012. Allowing of subsidy in fulfillment of conditions attached to provisions under the scheme and the operational guideline thereof.

¶09Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Learned Single Judge has wrongly interpreted and urged for Clause 18.2 is applicable to the industrial enterprises which commenced commercial production prior to 01.04.2012 and come under the purview of previous incentive scheme of 2007.

¶10The modifications made under the scheme of 2012 while providing 25% subsidy on investments made in land and civil works with an overall claim of Rs.50 lakhs to manufacturing sectors was given effect from the date of notifying such modifications i.e.23.07.2015 that means set up of the industrial enterprises after the date as narrated above shall be entitled to receive capital investment subsidy as per the modified provisions as because the petitioner's unit had started its commercial production on

20.09.2013 which is prior to the date of modification notified and it is not entitled to receive the benefit under the modified provisions of the scheme, 2012. Therefore, the notification issued on

23.07.2015 does not have any relevancy in respect of operation of the unit.

¶11In view of the order passed by the Learned Single Judge dated 12.01.2021 passed in WP(C) No.1337 of 2017 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondents authority i.e. the appellants herein to consider the case of the petitioner's

representation dated 25.08.2014 in accordance with law within a period of 3(three) month from the receipt of a copy of this order. With this observation and direction, this writ appeal stands disposed of.

JUDGE

JUDGE

Moumita SABYASACHI BHATTACHARJEE Date: 2024.03.06 03:53:17 -08'00'

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA WA No.295 of 2021 1. The State of Tripura, Represented by the Secretary, Government of Tripura, Department of Industries & Commerce, Government of Tripura, Khejurbagan, P.O. Agartala, District: Tripura (W) 2. Director of Industries and Commerce, Government of Tripura, Khejur Bagan, Kunjaban, District: West Tripura, Pin: 799 006 ---- Petitioner(s) -VERSUS- 1. Sri Sajib Saha, Proprietor of Tarasankar Plastic Industries, Factory Bypass Road, West Dukli, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN: 799 003 2. Union of India, Represented by Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Govt. of India ---- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. Sharma, Addl. G.A. For Respondent(s) : Ms. S. Deb Gupta, Advocate Mr. B. Majumder, DSGI Date of hearing and delivery of judgment and order : 05.03.2024