Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura vs Sri Sajib Saha on 5 March, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No.295 of 2021
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Secretary,
Government of Tripura,
Department of Industries & Commerce,
Government of Tripura, Khejurbagan,
P.O. Agartala, District: Tripura (W)
2. Director of Industries and Commerce,
Government of Tripura,
Khejur Bagan, Kunjaban,
District: West Tripura, Pin: 799 006
---- Petitioner(s)
-VERSUS-
1. Sri Sajib Saha,
Proprietor of Tarasankar Plastic Industries,
Factory Bypass Road, West Dukli, Agartala,
West Tripura, PIN: 799 003
2. Union of India,
Represented by Secretary,
Ministry of Commerce and Industry,
Govt. of India
---- Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. Sharma, Addl. G.A.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. S. Deb Gupta, Advocate
Mr. B. Majumder, DSGI
Date of hearing and delivery of
judgment and order : 05.03.2024
Judgment & order
Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order (Oral)
Heard Mr. D. Sharma, Learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the
appellants and Ms. S. Deb Gupta, Learned counsel appearing for
the respondent No.1 and Mr. B. Majumder, Learned DSGI
appearing for the respondent No.2.
02. This present writ appeal has been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India against the judgment and order dated
12.01.2021 passed by the Learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 1337
of 2017.
03. The brief fact is that the petitioner-respondent prayed the
reliefs viz. the respondent be directed to act strictly in accordance
with NEIIPP which shall remain in force till 31.03.2017. It has been
urged further that the benefit that the petitioner is entitled to,
under the Notification No.F.DI/TIS/SUB/4-2(21)/2006/P-III/13165-
274 dated 23.07.2015 of Tripura Industrial Investment Promotion
Incentives Scheme, 2012 be released forthwith. The petitioner on
25.08.2014 made a request to the General Manager, District
Industries Centre, West Tripura seeking to grant a subsidy on land
and for construction of the industry (shed) since the petitioner has
made the arrangement of the plant and machinery.
04. According to the respondent-petitioner he is covered by the
aforesaid scheme of 2012 for getting the incentives or benefits on
the fixed capital investment inasmuch as the said scheme provides
that all eligible enterprises will be entitled to an incentive at the
rate of 30% (subsequently modified to 25%) of the fixed capital
investment, subject to an aggregate ceiling of Rs.50 lacs in each
enterprise. The sole proprietorship units belonging to ST, SC and
Women individuals or the partnership business where all the
partners belong to ST, SC and women will be eligible for an
additional subsidy at the rate of 2.5% on fixed capital investment,
subject to an aggregate ceiling of Rs.50 lacs per enterprise
provided that wherever on when an enterprise is eligible for the
capital investment subsidy under NEIIPP-2007, the amount of
subsidy to be provided under this clause shall stand reduced to the
extent of subsidy entitlement under NEIIPP-2007. But this provision
has been modified subsequently by publishing a notification. The
enterprise shall have to mandatorily apply for the subsidy under
NEIIPP-2007.
05. The respondents have not taken any decision upon the
request made by the petitioner seeking subsidy of the land. The
contention of the respondents i.e. the appellants herein that since
the capital investment subsidy as provided under the NEIIPP 2007
is higher than 50 lakhs, no further incentive or benefit under the
Scheme, 2012 can be allowed to the petitioner i.e. the respondent
herein.
06. The Union of India-respondent have submitted that whatever
the petitioner was entitled to under the NEIIPP 2007, has been
disbursed and on that aspect, the petitioner does not have any
grievance against them The petitioner's grievance is confined to the
benefits under the said scheme, 2012.
07. It is seen from the record that earlier writ petition was filed
before the impugned notification dated 23.07.2015. The Learned
Single Judge allowed the writ petition directing the respondents i.e
the petitioners herein to make the due inquiry for determining the
quantum of subsidy within the framework of the NEIIPP and the
Scheme, 2012 and release the incentive/benefit to the petitioners
in two instalments.
08. Learned counsel for the appellant have urged before this
court that as per scheme incentive is available on capital
investment as on the date of commercial production started.
Eligibility of an unity for availing subsidy is bounded by the
guidelines and conditions stipulated under the scheme, 2012.
Allowing of subsidy in fulfillment of conditions attached to
provisions under the scheme and the operational guideline thereof.
09. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Learned
Single Judge has wrongly interpreted and urged for Clause 18.2 is
applicable to the industrial enterprises which commenced
commercial production prior to 01.04.2012 and come under the
purview of previous incentive scheme of 2007.
10. The modifications made under the scheme of 2012 while
providing 25% subsidy on investments made in land and civil works
with an overall claim of Rs.50 lakhs to manufacturing sectors was
given effect from the date of notifying such modifications
i.e.23.07.2015 that means set up of the industrial enterprises after
the date as narrated above shall be entitled to receive capital
investment subsidy as per the modified provisions as because the
petitioner's unit had started its commercial production on
20.09.2013 which is prior to the date of modification notified and it
is not entitled to receive the benefit under the modified provisions
of the scheme, 2012. Therefore, the notification issued on
23.07.2015 does not have any relevancy in respect of operation of
the unit.
11. In view of the order passed by the Learned Single Judge
dated 12.01.2021 passed in WP(C) No.1337 of 2017 is set aside
and the matter is remanded back to the respondents authority i.e.
the appellants herein to consider the case of the petitioner's
representation dated 25.08.2014 in accordance with law within a
period of 3(three) month from the receipt of a copy of this order.
With this observation and direction, this writ appeal stands
disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE
SABYASACHI SABYASACHI BHATTACHARJEE
BHATTACHARJEE Date: 2024.03.06 03:53:17
-08'00'
Moumita
