TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1366
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 the writ petition. 6. In the said communication from the Special Secretary of the Government of West Bengal, Commercial and Industries Department dated March 2, 2006, the petitioner no. 1, it was recorded, had proposed to set up a cement manufacturing unit at Murshidabad in an around Farakka with an investment of Rs. 100 crore. The said proposal was examined and it was decided to extend the package as enumerated therein to the petitioner no. 1. 7. The said package contemplated Industrial Promotional Assistance (IPA) at the rate of 75% of the Value Added Tax (VAT) and Central Sales Tax (CST) paid in the previous year for which IPA would be released without any Financial Cap by way of adjustment against VAT and CST liability of that year. 8. Among other provisions, it was also stipulated that the unit will be entitled to all other subsidie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant matter, it is argued, the respondents actually started disbursing the subsidies under the relevant package to the petitioners and stopped midway. 21. There is nothing to indicate that there was any change of policy as such by the respondents, to attract the ratio laid down in the cited judgments. 22. Learned counsel appearing for the State, at the outset, submits that the special package given to the petitioners has to be read in conjunction with the 2004 Schemes, particularly since the special package granted to 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 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be seen in proper perspective, to mean to apply to the entire package itself. 34. The only restriction in the scheme was by way of clause (ii) which stipulates that the unit will be entitled to all other subsidies as laid down in the WBIS 2000 Scheme except interest subsidy. 35. Hence, it is clear that the WBIS Scheme 2000 is not applicable as a whole to the special package given to the petitioners but was referred to in the package for the purpose of specifying the particular subsidies which were to be in terms of the 2000 Scheme, except, of course, interest subsidy. 36. Thus, nothing in the 2000 Scheme applies to the special package apart from the fact that the subsidies given to the petitioners were the same subsidies as enumerated in the 2000 Scheme, except interest subsidy. 37. In so far as the applicability of the 2004 Scheme is concerned, the argument of the respondent authorities is even more far-fetched than the 2000 Scheme. 38. There is nothing in the special package given to the petitioners and annexed at page 161 of the writ petition, which even cursorily refers to the 2004 Scheme. 39. Taking a cue from the arguments of the respondents, the said pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in that regard has been altered. 49. The present case is not a case where the State made a promise of giving a subsidy, but subsequently 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 the letter and spirit of the 2004 scheme being applicable is absurd. 53. The 2004 scheme is either to be applicable or not applicable in the present case. The said scheme is not a landmark piece of legislation or juristic thought that its letter and spirit should be borrowed to the special package. 54. The 20....