Patna High Court
M/S Rajdeep Rice Mill Private Limited vs The State Of Bihar on 1 May, 2024
Bench: Chief Justice, Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11694 of 2021
======================================================
M/s Rajdeep Rice Mill Private Limited Near Bahadurpur More, Harnaut
Chandi Road, Post - Sartha, Police Station- Chandi, District - Nalanda
through the Director - Pradeep Kumar aged about 37 years, Male, Son of Late
Ramesh Prasad, resident of Village - Dahi Bazar Ramgarhwa, Police Station -
Ramgarhwa, District - East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Industries Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director Industries, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The State Investment Promotion Board, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Namrata Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Chhotelal Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Rajnandan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vikash Kumar, SC-11
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 01-05-2024
The petitioner is before this Court claiming
Patna High Court CWJC No.11694 of 2021 dt.01-05-2024
2/6
reimbursement of the Value Added Tax/Central Service
Tax/Entry Tax paid by the petitioner-Unit in terms of Clause 3(i)
of the Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011, as brought out by the
State.
2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company which
has been established within the State of Bihar eligible for
incentive under the Policy of 2011, as claimed by the petitioner.
The petitioner's contention is that on the recommendation of the
State Investment Promotion Board (for brevity 'SIPB') to
proactively promote investment in the State and to take a
holistic review of proposals for setting up industrial units in the
light of incentives and rebates available as against the
investment proposal, a resolution was brought out by the State,
produced at Annexure-1. Initially, all proposals up to Rs. 100
Crores were to be approved by the Chief Minister and above
that the by the Cabinet. The Department of Industries then came
out with a communication, Annexure-2 indicating all investment
proposals to be made before the Industrial Development
Commissioner (for brevity 'IDC') which shall then be placed
before the SIPB. Applications for grant of incentives and
subsidy was to be made before the Director of Industries as per
Annexure-2. The Bihar Single Window Clearance Act, 2006
Patna High Court CWJC No.11694 of 2021 dt.01-05-2024
3/6
was also brought in envisaging multi levels of statutory
authorities being a District Level Committee headed by the
District Magistrate and the State Level Committee headed by
the IDC apart from SIPB and a Nodal Agency headed by the
Director, Technical Development, Department of Industries. The
proposals above Rs. 100 lacs were to be placed before the SIPB
for its approval and below that was to be vetted by the District
Level Committee as per Annexure-5. When these notifications
were in place, the Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011 was enacted,
which is produced as Annexure-6.
3. The petitioner has elaborately dealt with the
incentives provided in the 2011 Policy, but suffice it to notice
that the new industries established were entitled to tax related
incentives of 80 per cent reimbursement against the admitted
VAT amount deposited in the account of the Government for a
period of ten years. The ceiling for this reimbursement would be
300 per cent of the capital invested. In the year 2016, Bihar
Industrial Investment Promotion Policy, 2016 came into vogue,
wherein the incentives were akin to that provided in 2011 but
the period prescribed was limited to five years from the date of
commencement of commercial production; while as per the
earlier Policy of 2011, it was ten years. The 2016 Policy also
Patna High Court CWJC No.11694 of 2021 dt.01-05-2024
4/6
provided that the existing Units covered under the Policy of
2011 will continue to draw the incentive at rates and conditions
of the Incentive Policy of 2011 till their limit is exhausted or on
completion of the eligibility period, whichever is earlier.
4. The petitioner claims that the total investment for
the petitioner's Unit was Rs. 650 lacs and the petitioner was
registered with the District Industry Centre, Nalanda. Annexure-
8 is the project proposal of the petitioner approved in the SIPB
meeting dated 05.03.2014. Annexure-9 is the communication
issued by the Department of Industries indicating that in a
meeting of the PAMC the DPR of the revised project was
consented to.
5. Though the approvals were produced, there was
nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner had commenced
production which is crucial for the purpose of availing
incentives under the Bihar Industrial Investment Promotion
Policy.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has specifically
pointed out the Pass Book issued to the petitioner, produced as
Annexure-15 along with the reply to the counter affidavit. We
saw from the Pass Book under the Industrial Incentive Policy-
2006; which it is submitted had been issued after the Industrial
Patna High Court CWJC No.11694 of 2021 dt.01-05-2024
5/6
Policy of 2011 which makes it clear that it is under the later
policy. The date of production, as seen from the Pass Book, is
20-01-2016
. However, this stands contrary to the specific
contention of the petitioner in Paragraph 31 of the memorandum
of writ petition that the Petitioner-Unit commenced on
17.02.2014, as is evident from Letter No. 1140 dated 22.07.2014
issued by the Director, Technical Development, Bihar, Patna.
However, the said document has not been produced. We are also
not inclined to accept the said date of production since the
project proposal of the petitioner was approved by the SIPB
even according to the petitioner only by Annexure-8 dated
30.06.2015; which is after the declared date of commencement
of commercial production in the year 2014.
7. Even if we take the date of commencement of
production as seen from the Pass Book, then the question arises
as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the incentives.
8. The counter affidavit of the Government
specifically points out that incentives would be available as
reimbursement only for operational Units. According to the
petitioner, as stated in Paragraph 27 of the memorandum of writ
petition, the loan account of the petitioner was declared a Non-
Performing Asset (NPA) on 31.05.2019 and the Unit was closed
Patna High Court CWJC No.11694 of 2021 dt.01-05-2024
down on December, 2019. The petitioner's entitlement also is
thus doubtful.
9. On the totality of the circumstances as stated above,
we are unable to issue a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. We hence dismiss the writ petition.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
P.K.P./-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 10.05.2024
Transmission Date
