TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1366
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petitioners for a little more than two years, although the total tenure of the scheme was for five years and two months. 4. When the petitioners approached the respondent authorities for the balance disbursal, a decision was taken at the level of the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Industry, Commerce and Enterprises of the Government of West Bengal, by virtue of which the non-disbursal of further amounts under the package was stood by, primarily by referring to certain provisions of a 2004 scheme, which has no nexus with the special package granted to the petitioners. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners places reliance on the specific language of the additional package, which is annexed at page-161 of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....packages granted to three cement manufacturing units including the petitioner no. 1 were granted in lieu of Interest Subsidy under the relevant scheme. 13. Thereafter reference has been made to the 2000 and 2004 Schemes, which apparently contemplated a limit of Rs. 100 Lakh per year in respect of Interest Subsidy. 14. Learned senior counsel contends that such reliance on the 2000 and 2004 Schemes was entirely erroneous, since the petitioners do not fall under either. 15. The special package granted to the petitioners, it is argued, was not within the contemplation of either the 2000 or the 2004 Schemes, nor did it relate to Interest Subsidy, as evident from the language of the said package itself. 16. It is reiterated that the package c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petitioners was on March 2, 2006, when the 2004 scheme was already in force. 23. It is submitted that the letter and spirit of the 2004 Scheme has to be borrowed for a proper interpretation of the special package issued to the petitioners. 24. Learned counsel places elaborately the order impugned herein. It is contended that the observations of the Additional Chief Secretary were justified. 25. By placing reliance on portions of the order, it is argued that the incentive schemes which were formulated to encourage capital investment in the manufacturing sector of the State, which provide for subsidy to cover full 100% of fixed capital investment of the unit, and have to be read in proper perspective and should not be so interpreted a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uncertain terms, specifies that the Industrial Promotional Assistance (IPA) would be at the rate of 75% of VAT and CST paid in the previous year to the year for which IPA would be released without any financial cap by way of adjustment against VAT and CST liability of that year. 32. The emphasis, supplied above, clearly indicates that the package was meant to be without any financial cap. The respondent authorities seek to restrict such expression to the subsequent clause that the financial caps referred to were in respect of adjustment against VAT and CST liability of that year. 33. Be that as it may, since the IPA-in-question pertains exclusively to subsidies regarding VAT and CST paid in the previous year, the context of the financial ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be applicable to the special package of the petitioners in any manner whatsoever. 41. There is no dispute as to eligibility of the petitioners. The question, which arises here, is whether the respondent authorities can claim to have changed their policy midway vis-à-vis the petitioners and the entities covered by the special package only. 42. Nothing in the materials on record or from the arguments of the respondent authorities indicate that there was a declared change of policy or withdrawal of the special package given to the petitioners at any point of time. 43. In so far as the judgments cited by the respondent authorities are concerned, the same are distinguishable from the facts of the present case on two very important scor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubsequently changed the policy decision, thereby depriving prospective applicants for such subsidy from getting the subsidy. 50. The present case is one where an entity, running its business on the specific premise of the promise given out by the State by way of a substantial package, and was granted disbursals in terms of the said package for half of the period of the entire tenure of the said package. The tenure was of five years and two months and for more than two years, the package was honoured by the respondents. 51. Hence, the respondents are squarely bound by the principle of doctrine estoppel in the present case, which goes a shade higher than mere promissory estoppel. 52. That apart, the argument of the respondents regarding th....