Court dismisses appeals, affirms order granting subsidies and waiver. Promissory estoppel not applicable.

The court dismissed both appeals (APOT 59 of 2021 and APO 68 of 2021) and affirmed the Single Judge's order. The petitioner was entitled to interest subsidy up to August 31, 2011, Fixed Capital Investment Subsidy, and waiver of electricity duty as per the Scheme. The principle of promissory estoppel was not applicable in this case.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to interest subsidy under WBSSIS-2008.
2. Entitlement to Fixed Capital Investment Subsidy (FCIS).
3. Waiver of electricity duty.
4. Application of promissory estoppel.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Interest Subsidy under WBSSIS-2008:
The primary issue was whether the writ petitioner was entitled to interest subsidy under the West Bengal State Support for Industry Scheme, 2008 (WBSSIS-2008). The petitioner claimed interest subsidy for the term loan borrowed for the project implementation. The State argued that the petitioner did not fulfill the conditions prescribed in clause 9.2, specifically that the interest was not paid in full and on due dates, and there was no certificate from WBIDC certifying such payment. The court highlighted that the eligibility clause should be strictly construed, and once eligibility is established, the exemption clause may be construed liberally. The petitioner had fulfilled the eligibility conditions up to August 31, 2011, as per the loan-related information provided by the respondent, thus entitling them to interest subsidy up to that date. However, for the period after August 31, 2011, the requisite conditions were not satisfied, and thus, the petitioner could not claim interest subsidy for that period.

2. Entitlement to Fixed Capital Investment Subsidy (FCIS):
The petitioner claimed FCIS based on the fixed capital investment of Rs. 1038.37 lakhs, which was initially assessed at Rs. 869.42 lakhs and later amended. The court examined whether the petitioner fulfilled the conditions for FCIS under clause 9.1 of the Scheme. The petitioner had submitted the necessary certificates from the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, certifying the VAT paid during the relevant years. The court found that the petitioner met all the conditions for FCIS and rejected the State's argument that granting FCIS would lead to double benefits. The court upheld the Single Judge's order allowing FCIS to the petitioner.

3. Waiver of Electricity Duty:
The petitioner claimed a waiver of electricity duty for five years from the commencement of commercial production under clause 9.3 of the Scheme. The court noted that no serious challenge was advanced against this claim, and no infirmity was pointed out in the Single Judge's order. Therefore, the court found no reason to interfere with the order granting the waiver of electricity duty.

4. Application of Promissory Estoppel:
The petitioner argued that the principle of promissory estoppel should apply, relying on judgments in Manuelsons Hotels Private Limited vs. State of Kerala and Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. The court found that there was no evidence of the competent authority withdrawing any promise made to the petitioner. Therefore, the principle of promissory estoppel was not applicable in this case.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed both appeals (APOT 59 of 2021 and APO 68 of 2021) and affirmed the Single Judge's order. The petitioner was entitled to interest subsidy up to August 31, 2011, Fixed Capital Investment Subsidy, and waiver of electricity duty as per the Scheme. The principle of promissory estoppel was not applicable in this case.

---