TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Upholds Benefits Under Expired Policy, Mandamus Issued for Compliance</h1> <h3>Radha Flour Mill (P) Ltd. and Ors. Versus The State of Bihar and Ors.</h3> Radha Flour Mill (P) Ltd. and Ors. Versus The State of Bihar and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Entitlement of benefits under the 2011 Industrial Policy of Bihar.2. Duration of benefits relative to the policy's lifespan.3. Interpretation of policy terms and their legal implications.4. Application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement of benefits under the 2011 Industrial Policy of Bihar:The petitioner, a registered company, sought benefits under the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy of 2011, which aimed to attract investments and promote industrial growth by offering various incentives, including exemptions from certain charges. The policy provided that benefits would be available to industries established and commencing production within five years from July 1, 2011.2. Duration of benefits relative to the policy's lifespan:A key issue was whether the benefits would cease with the policy's expiration on June 30, 2016, or if industries would continue to enjoy the benefits for five years from their date of commercial production. The petitioner's flour mill commenced production on October 25, 2014, and sought remission of electric bills under the policy. The State Government's Finance Department opined that benefits ceased with the policy's expiration, while the Industry and Law Departments believed benefits should continue for the full five years.3. Interpretation of policy terms and their legal implications:The court emphasized that the policy should be interpreted to fulfill its purpose of attracting investments and promoting industrial growth. The policy's terms, such as 'exemption from Monthly Minimum Charges/Minimum Base Energy Charge/Demand/Billing Demand,' were meant to provide benefits for five years, irrespective of the policy's expiration. The court referenced various judgments to support a purposive interpretation of policy terms, ensuring that the policy's objectives were met.4. Application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel:The petitioner argued that the State could not retract its promise of benefits, as industries had been established based on the policy's incentives. The court agreed, citing the doctrine of promissory estoppel, which prevents the State from reneging on its commitments if industries had relied on them to make significant investments. The court referenced several Supreme Court judgments affirming that once a government extends benefits to attract investments, it cannot withdraw them arbitrarily.Conclusion:The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that the benefits under the 2011 Industrial Policy should continue for the full five years from the date of commercial production, irrespective of the policy's expiration. The court quashed the Finance Department's contrary interpretation and directed the State to grant the petitioner the benefits as stipulated in the policy.Mandamus Issued:The court issued a mandamus to the State to provide the petitioner with the exemption from Monthly Minimum Charges/Minimum Base Energy Charge/Demand/Billing Demand as per Clause (vi) of Clause 2 of the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011. The writ applications were allowed accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
