Agartala Plastics Private ... vs The State Of Tripura And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 64 Tri

                                    Page 1 of 6




                        HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                              AGARTALA

                             WP(C) No.598/2020
Agartala Plastics Private Limited
                                                               ----Petitioner(s)
                                          Versus
The State of Tripura and others
                                                             -----Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s)                  : Mr. B.N. Majumder, Advocate,
                                     Mr. R. Saha, Advocate.

For Respondent(s)                  : Mr. K. De, Addl. G.A.

        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY

       Date of hearing and judgment : 12th January, 2021.
       Whether fit for reporting          : NO.

                       JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)


(Akil Kureshi, C.J.)

The petitioner has challenged a communication dated

25.06.2020 and further prayed for grant of subsidy in terms of Tripura

Industrial Investment Promotion Incentive Scheme, 2012 (hereinafter to be

referred to as the Incentive Scheme).

2. Brief facts are as under:

Petitioner is a private limited company and is engaged in

manufacturing different types of UPVC pipe and fittings, HDE coil pipes,

etc. for which the petitioner had established a manufacturing unit at

Bodhjung Nagar, R.K. Road, Agartala in the year 2013. The State of Tripura

had framed the said scheme which envisaged grant of certain incentives in

the form of subsidy to the specified industries set up on or after 01.04.2012.

Such rebate would be equal to the net amount of Tripura Value Added Tax

and Central Sales Tax and other taxes paid by the industry to the State

Government on sale of finished goods subject to certain conditions. The

petitioner was one of the eligible units and in the past had also claimed and

was granted subsidy as per the terms of the said scheme. In the present

petition, we are concerned with the petitioner's claim of refund of the VAT

etc. under the said scheme for period between 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2016 and

thereafter from 01.01.2017 to 30.06.2017. The petitioner first applied under

two separate applications for such refund to the District Industries Centre on

23.06.2020 along with all necessary documents. These applications of the

petitioner were rejected by the District Industries Centre by two separate

orders both dated 25.06.2020. The sole ground cited for rejection of the

petitioner's applications was that the claim was submitted after expiry of

two years from the period to which the claim related.

3. The petitioner thereupon again approached the District

Industrial Centre under a communication dated 13.07.2020 and made out

detailed grounds for not being able to apply for subsidy earlier. In short, the

case the petitioner projected was that along with such applications, the

petitioner had to produce the certificate of payment of taxes by the VAT

authority which the petitioner, had though applied in time, was not granted

by the said authority for a long time despite reminders from the petitioner.

This application of the petitioner was not entertained upon which the present

petition came to be filed.

4. In short, the case of the petitioner is that the Industrial Unit is

eligible for the benefits under the said scheme. For the past period the same

had been granted. In the present case, the only reason for not applying for

the refund of the taxes was that the VAT department had not issued

necessary certificate of payment of VAT. Without filing such copies along

with refund application the petitioner could not have asked for refund.

According to the petitioner thus it was on account of delay and default on

part of one department of the Government that he was prevented from filing

refund applications in time.

5. The respondents have filed reply taking a stand that under the

scheme there is no provision for extension of time for making refund

application and in any case, the petitioner had not made out any grounds for

extension of time or condonation of delay while making the application for

refund.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is otherwise an eligible

unit entitled to the refund of the value added tax under the said scheme, of

course subject to fulfillment of the conditions contained therein. The scheme

also envisages time limit for making application for refund. However, if the

VAT department of the Government had delayed issuing necessary

certificates of payment of tax to the petitioner, the application of the

petitioner for refund cannot be rejected only on the ground of delay in

making the same. Surely one department of the Government cannot cite the

reason of another department not acting promptly enough to deny the benefit

declared by the Government under the scheme. Further it may be true that

the petitioner had not explained such reasons in the applications for refund.

However, when the petitioner made a detailed further submission in writing

to the authority explaining the reasons which prevented him from making

application within time, the same ought to have been examined in the correct

factual context. Thus, both the objections of the respondents that the scheme

does not envisage extension of time for making application for refund and

that the petitioner at the outset had not made out any grounds justifying

delay, are turned down. On record, the petitioner has produced applications

for grant of certificate by the VAT authorities and copies of reminders.

However, that all these aspects be first examined by the District Industrial

Centre.

7. Under the circumstances, the petition is disposed of with

following directions:

The District Industrial Centre shall consider the petitioner's

further representations both dated 13.07.2020 copies of which are produced

at Annexure-9 to the petition and the contents thereof. If it is found that the

petitioner is correct in contending that the refund applications were delayed

on account of non-issuance of certificate of payment of tax by the VAT

authorities, its applications for refund shall be entertained and examined on

merits and refund to the extent payable be released. If, on the other hand, the

authority comes to the conclusion that delay in making the applications

could not be attributed to the delay in issuance of the VAT payment

certificates by the concerned authority, a speaking order shall be passed and

communicated to the petitioner. Entire exercise shall be completed within

four months from today.

8. Petition disposed of accordingly.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

     (S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J                   (AKIL KURESHI), CJ




Pulak