Jharkhand High Court
Satyam Ferro-Tech (P) Ltd. A ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 17 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 2129 of 2010
Satyam Ferro-Tech (P) Ltd. A company registered under the
companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Kalyani
Apartment, 1st Floor, Gandhi Chowk, Giridih, 815301, P.O. and P.S.
Giridih, District Giridih (Jharkhand) through its Director Binod
Kumar Agarwala, Son of Late Vishwanath Agarwala, Resident of
Bara Chowk, Opposite Circuit House, Giridih, P.O. and P.S. Giridih,
District Giridih ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Industries
Department, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, Ranchi
834002, District Ranchi
2. Director of Industries, Engineer's Building, Sector-III, Dhurwa,
P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004 District Ranchi
3. General Manager, District Industries Centre, Giridih, 815301
P.O. and P.S. Giridih, District Giridih ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Ms. Aakansha Mittal, Advocate
Ms. Niharika Nidhi, Advocate
For the Respondents : None
---
09/17.04.2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner is present.
2. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has
been listed pursuant to the order dated 22.02.2022 passed in L.P.A.
No. 65 of 2011. She submits that the dispute in the present case relates
to interest subsidy and the surviving grievance of the petitioner is only
in relation to the financial year 2006-07 and 2007-08. She submits that
so far as rest of the financial years are concerned, the grievance of the
petitioner has already been redressed. She submits that there is no
dispute that there has been delay in submission of application in
interest subsidy for the financial year 2006-07 and 2007-08. The
application for the year 2006-07 was filed on 10.12.2007and there was
delay of 2 months 10 days. The application was required to be filed
within a period of six months from the date of closure of the financial
year. So far as 2007-08 is concerned, the same was filed on
31.10.2008 and there was delay of one month.
4. Learned counsel has submitted that reason for delay was that
the required certificate from the Commercial Taxes department was
issued belatedly. She has referred to the interlocutory application to
submit that the application for giving turnover and tax payment
certificate for the year 2006-07 was filed on 06.09.2007 prior to expiry
of the period prescribed for filing the application, but the same was
made available only by memo No. 61 dated 02.03.2009. So far as
period 2007-08 is concerned, the application for issuance of the
turnover and tax payment certificate was filed on 19 th of August, 2008
which was also much before the expiry of the period of six months but
the same was issued vide memo No. 612 dated 19.11.2008 and the
application for the period 2007-08 was already filed on 31.10.2008.
5. The learned counsel submits that a letter dated 03.05.2008 was
issued by the Industries Department by referring to the letter of the
petitioner dated 10.12.2007 relating to the period 2006-07 mentioning
therein that the required documents to be filed which included the
reason for delay.
6. She submits that pursuant to the letter dated 03.05.2008
(Annexure-7) which was issued vide memo No. 124 dated 12.02.2009
as mentioned in Annexure-7 itself, the petitioner duly responded vide
letter dated 13.03.2009 addressed to the General Manager, District
Industry Centre, mentioning therein that the reason for delay for
submission of application was that the payment certificate from the
Sales Tax Authority could not be obtained within the time frame. She
submits that although no separate petition for condonation of delay
was filed, but the reason for delay was mentioned vide Annexure-8
itself.
7. Learned counsel submits that while rejecting the claim of the
interest subsidy by the impugned order dated 22.03.2010, the reason
for condonation of delay as mentioned in Annexure-8 i.e. letter dated
13.03.2009 has not been considered. She submits that the response
was filed before the General Manager, District Industry Centre,
Giridih i.e. through proper channel but it appears that the said letter
was not considered by the Director, Industries while passing the
impugned order by stating that no reason has been assigned for delay
in submitting the application.
8. Learned counsel has also submitted that so far as the period
2007-08 is concerned, the required turnover and tax payment
certificate was also issued belatedly i.e. on 18.11.2008 though it was
applied for within time. She submits that there has been no delay and
laches on the part of the petitioner and rather the delay and laches is
totally attributable to the Commercial Taxes Department who had
delayed in issuance of the turn over and tax payment certificate.
9. The learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances the impugned order dated 23.10.2010 rejecting the
application of the petitioner for interest subsidy for the period 2006-07
and 2007-08 on the ground that there is no reason for condonation of
delay is fit to be set aside and the petitioner is held to be entitled for
the interest subsidy for the aforesaid periods. She submits that the
interest subsidy amount for the period 2006-07 is Rs. 50,87,136/- and
for the period 2007-08 is Rs. 49,54,842/-.
10. Post this case for judgment on 14.06.2023.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit
