M/S Jagran Prakashan Limited vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 5220 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11004 of 2023
     ======================================================

M/S Jagran Prakashan Limited A Company registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956- having its registered Office at 2, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur- Uttar Pradesh, Regional Head Office at C-6, Patliputra Industrial Area, Patliputra, Patna-800013, and Regional Office at Uma Shankar Prasad Marg, Near Pani Tanki Chowk, P.O.- Ramna, P.S.- Mithanpura, District- Muzaffarpur, PIN- 842002 through the General Manager, Shambhu Nath Pathak, Male, Age about-54 years, Son of Late Braj Bihari Pathak, Resident of House No. 25, Hanuman Nagar, Behind Rajbanshi Nagar, New PunaiChak, P.O.- Shastri Nagar, P.S. - Shastri Nagar, Patna, Bihar PIN- 800023.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar, Bihar, Patna.

2. The Director Industries, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Director (Technical) Development, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Muzaffarpur.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Adv.

                            :     Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv.
     For the Respondent/s   :     Mr.Ajay Behari Sinha ( Ga 8 )
                            :     Mr. Suryakant, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 10-10-2023 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

The present writ petition has been filed for the

following relief(s):-

"a) For issuance of a writ in nature of Certiorari for quashing the Memo

No. SIPB/946 dated 10.04.2023 issued by the Director Industries, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar, Patna whereby Patna High Court CWJC No.11004 of 2023 dt.10-10-2023

the claim of the petitioner for grant of remission from Monthly Minimum Charges/Minimum Base Energy Charge/Demand/Billing Demand under Clause 2 (vi) and remission of Electricity Duty under Clause 3 (ii) of the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy- 2011 has been rejected despite of the fact that the petitioner unit was having the approval from the State Investment Promotion Board (hereinafter referred to as SIPB) dated 20.08.2014.

b) For issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to grant the remission from Monthly Minimum Charges/Minimum Base Energy Charge/Demand/Billing Demand in terms of the Clause 2 (vi) of the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy- 2011 and remission of Electricity Duty as incentive of 100% for seven years in terms of Clause 3(ii) of the Industrial Incentive Policy-2011 - to the Petitioner Company in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in CWJC 12104 of 2018 and analogous cases (M/s Sunny Star Hotels Private Limited versus The State of Bihar & Others) reported in 2020 (2) BLJ 55.

c) For issuance of such other order/orders, direction/directions, writ/writs which the Petitioner may be entitled to."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the

impugned order is passed by the authority concerned solely on the

ground that the petitioner has started production even before the

approval has been granted by the State Investment Promotion

Board (SIPB).

Patna High Court CWJC No.11004 of 2023 dt.10-10-2023

3. Learned counsel has stated that under the Bihar

Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011, the petitioner's entitlement

for re-imbursement of VAT/ET/SGST was denied on the

ground that the petitioner has started commercial production

even before the approval by SIPB and the authorities have

rejected the case of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel has stated that there is nothing

under the regulation which states that the approval of the SIPB

is a condition precedent for starting the commercial

production. That the stand taken by the authorities is not only

arbitrary, bad and illegal but also contrary to the scheme

floated by the State of Bihar under the Bihar Industrial

Incentive Policy, 2011, and therefore, prayed this Hon'ble

Court to allow the present writ petition and give a direction to

the authorities concerned for granting the incentives under the

Bihar Industrial Incentives policy, 2011.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondents has vehemently opposed the prayer

of this writ petition and has stated that the petitioner has

violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Patna High Court CWJC No.11004 of 2023 dt.10-10-2023

6. Learned counsel has stated that the petitioner has

not taken prior approval of the SIPB before starting the

production. The act of the petitioner in starting the production

even before the approval was granted is in violation of the

incentive policy, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to

any incentive as envisaged under the Incentive Policy, 2011.

Further, it is stated under similar circumstances the authorities

have rejected the case of M/s Jagaran Prakash Limited, Gaya

after taking opinion of the Law Department, and therefore, the

petitioner's case which is also similar has also been rejected.

Learned counsel for the respondents has prayed to dismiss the

present writ petition.

7. Admittedly, in the present case, the State of Bihar

has floated Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011 to attract

investments in the State. The petitioner, admittedly, has

applied to the Competent Authority i.e. SIPB and was granted

approval on 20.08.2014 and as per the said policy, the

petitioner is entitled for re-imbursement of VAT/ET/SGST.

But, the case of the petitioner has been rejected on the sole

ground that the petitioner has started commercial production

even before the grant of approval by SIPB. The said stand Patna High Court CWJC No.11004 of 2023 dt.10-10-2023

taken by the official respondents appears to be an arbitrary

and frivolous one. Admittedly the authorities have invited

investors/ industrialists to invest in the State of Bihar by

floating the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011 and under

the scheme some incentives have being offered to the

Businessmen who have established their industries. The stand

taken by the respondent that the petitioner has started

production even before the grant of approval is without any

legal basis. The policy does not lay any guidelines or

restrictions on the industrialists that the production cannot be

started before the approval by SIPB is granted and does not

state that any person who starts production without getting the

necessary approvals from SIPB is disentitled to the incentives.

Admittedly in the present case, the approval was granted on

28.08.2014 and it is the case of the respondents that the

commercial production has started on 27.03.2012 merely

because the production is started the incentive under the

scheme cannot be disallowed. At the most, the incentives can

be granted from the date of the approval of SIPB but the

authorities cannot deny the incentives under the scheme as a

whole.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11004 of 2023 dt.10-10-2023

8. Having regard to the above made submissions, the

court does not find any valid reasons for upholding the

impugned order passed by the authorities and the same is set

aside. The authorities are directed to grant the incentives as

envisaged under the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011

from the date of approval of the SIPB and make necessary

payments to the petitioner as per the entitlement within a

period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of

this order.

(A. Abhishek Reddy, J) Ayush/-

AFR/NAFR                       NAFR
CAV DATE                       N/A
Uploading Date               12.10.2023.
Transmission Date              N/A