The High Court of Tripura dismissed a petition filed against a notification that had abrogated the benefits allowed to the petitioner. The court upheld the Appellate Court's reliance on the Unicorn Industries case, which had previously addressed and dismissed challenges to the withdrawal notification, and rejected the review petitioners' arguments that the judgment contained errors.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner had approached the court against the notification that had abrogated the benefits allowed to the petitioner. The petitioner in furtherance of the notification, made extensive investments in the specified zone, growth centre, or the industrial park. The petitioner had pleaded that under the industrial policy, certain incentives were granted to those who established industries in the North Eastern Region in order to give stimulus to the development of industrial infrastructure. After that, a further notification was issued granting incentives to new industrial units that commenced commercial production. Later, the notifications withdrew the benefits.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that that the precedent established in the case of Unicorn Industries was not applicable to the circumstances of the present case. He further contended that the decision in the Unicorn Industries case primarily revolved around the conflict between overriding public interest and the rights of the petitioners, who had made investments under the now-withdrawn exemption notifications, namely, withdrawal notifications, the latter being the subject of the writ petition. He further contended that this withdrawal was not based on concerns of overriding public interest but rather stemmed from the misuse of the escrow mechanism by the beneficiary unit.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent contended that the stand of the Union of India before the Writ Court and throughout all these proceedings has been the same and common that the withdrawal of exemption notification is on grounds of public interest.
Observations of the court:
The court observed that the present review petition has been filed based on the liberty granted by the Apex court concerning the first proposition presented, which challenges the Appellate Court's reliance on the Unicorn Industries case as being incorrect and it was noted that Notification was a subject of the dispute before the Apex Court in the Unicorn Industries case, along with another withdrawal notification. The court further observed that the Gauhati High Court had previously declared these withdrawal notifications invalid in a case that related to the present petitioners and the respondent authorities consistently argued that the appellant had misused the escrow account related to its investment, among other reasons.
The court further highlighted that the Gauhati High Court's decision on the withdrawal notification had been challenged before the Apex Court in the Unicorn Industries case. The judgment in Unicorn Industries and similar civil appeals was based on the respondent authorities' consistent position, which included their argument that the exemption notification's escrow mechanism was susceptible to misuse and the arguments presented in the review petition, including those related to the application of Section 38(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, were not new, as they had already been raised in the original writ petition.
Given that the Supreme Court had previously addressed and dismissed the challenge to the withdrawal notification in the Unicorn Industries case, the court concluded that it was unfounded to argue that the judgment of the Appellate Court, which relied on the same decision in Unicorn Industries, contained any apparent errors. Therefore, the court rejected the review petitioners' contentions that Unicorn Industries did not apply to their case. The court emphasized that it did not have the authority to comment on the writ petitioners' contentions regarding the Supreme Court's decision in Unicorn Industries and the court found no grounds for reviewing the impugned judgment in this matter.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Dharampal Premchand vs. The Commissioner of Central Exercise, Shillong
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arindam Lodh
Case No.: Review Petition 57 OF 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Kartik Sundaram, Mr. Kousik Roy, Mr. Rohan Chakraborty
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Paramartha Dutta, Mr. S. Chowdhury
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
