Industrial incentive exemption continues for full promised term despite policy expiry, supported by purposive interpretation and promissory estoppel.

An industrial incentive promising exemption from monthly minimum charges, minimum base energy charge, demand and billing demand for five years was analysed as continuing for the full stipulated period even after the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011 had expired, where the unit commenced commercial production during the policy period. The policy was construed purposively to give full effect to the promised benefit once eligibility was achieved, and the contrary approach was said to defeat the scheme's object. The discussion also relied on promissory estoppel, noting that the State could not withdraw the incentive after the unit altered its position by acting on the policy. The impugned administrative view was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of exemption from monthly minimum charges, minimum base energy charge, demand and billing demand under the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011 continued for the full stipulated period of five years after the policy itself had ceased, where the industrial unit had commenced commercial production during the currency of the policy.

Analysis: The incentive clause granted exemption for five years to existing operational units and new units covered by the policy. The policy was framed to attract investment and promote industrial development, so it had to be construed purposively and in a manner that gave full effect to the promised benefit once the unit fell within its ambit. The contrary view would truncate the incentive midway and defeat the object of the policy. The opinions of the Industry Department and the Law Department supported continuation of the benefit for five years from the date of eligibility, while the Finance Department's view would make the scheme anomalous and ineffective, particularly where the policy itself contemplated benefits extending beyond the policy's life. The principle of promissory estoppel also supported the conclusion that the State could not withdraw the promised incentive after the unit had altered its position by acting on the policy.

Conclusion: The benefit of exemption was held to survive for the full five-year period, notwithstanding the expiry of the policy, and the contrary view of the Finance Department was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The impugned administrative decision was set aside and the petitioners were entitled to the industrial incentive for the full period contemplated by the policy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an industrial incentive policy promises a fixed-period benefit to units that enter production during the policy period, the benefit accrues for the stated duration and cannot be cut short merely because the policy later expires, unless a contrary statutory prohibition or overriding public interest is shown.

---