TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1135
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el, assisted by Mr. P. K. Bora, Learned Counsel. For the Respondent: Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Taxation Department, and Mr. A. Kalita, learned Standing Industries & Commerce Department and Mr. G. Das, learned Standing Counsel, North-Eastern Development Finance Corporation Limited. ORDER PER Heard Dr. A. K. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. P. K. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the above noted writ petitions. Also heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Taxation Department, and Mr. A. Kalita, learned Standing Industries & Commerce Department and Mr. G. Das, learned Standing Counsel, North-Eastern Development Finance Corporation Limited. 2. The petitioners, in the above noted writ petitions have presented a challenge to a communication dated 16.06.2017, issued by the Superintendent of Taxes (Recovery), Guwahati, to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, NEDFi, TISCP, Guwahati, requiring the latter to not disburse any subsidy to the firms named therein, including the petitioners, herein, without prior clearance/concurrence of the Tax authorities. 3. The petitioners, in the present proceedings have contende....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osition and a modification thereof was mandated to be so undertaken by the State Tax Authorities. 5. It is submitted that the Tax authorities have, however, not responded to the prayers made by the petitioners herein. It is further submitted by the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions that the subsidy amount now being directed to kept on hold, are the amounts due to the petitioner's firms under the policy formulated by the Government of India and the said amount is not liable to be attached for the purpose of recovery of the defaulted tax amounts. The petitioners further submit that the NEDFi authority, being only the disbursing authority, they are not entitled to withhold any amount of subsidy after the same was so sanctioned by the competent authorities. Accordingly, it is submitted that the communication dated 16.06.2017, issued to the disbursing authority of the subsidy amount, i.e. the NEDFi authorities is clearly illegal. The petitioners having not got any response from the respondent authorities, had proceeded to institute the above noted writ petitions before this Court. 6. At this stage, it is to be noted that this Court while issuing notices in the matter h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Saraf has submitted that the amounts as reflected against each of the petitioners in the proceedings, in the impugned communication dated 16.06.2017, has been so done without carrying out a reconciliation with the amounts of tax paid by the petitioners in each of the above noted writ petitions. Accordingly, Dr. Saraf submits that the amount so reflected against each of the petitioners in the impugned communication dated 16.06.2017 is clearly erroneous and would require interference by this Court. 10. Dr. Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the subsidy due to the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions is so due under various scheme framed in the Government of India and the respondent no. 7 being the disbursing agency, would have no jurisdiction to withhold the said subsidy amounts due to the petitioners, basing on a request made in this connection by the Superintendent of Taxes (Recovery), Guwahati, vide the communication dated 16.06.2017. Accordingly, he submits that the amount of subsidy due to the petitioners being not in a form of debt, the same cannot be permitted to be recovered for satisfaction of the purported tax dues receivable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elease to them. 14. Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel has further submitted that the policy, under which the subsidy amount is claimed by the petitioners, in the above noted writ petitions, mandates that before the disbursement of subsidy, NEDFi authorities must ensure that outstanding dues if any, of State and Central Government, Nationalized Banks and Government Financial Institutions are to be recovered. He submits that when the said provision existing in the policy in question, is read with the provisions of Section 44 of the Act of 2003, there is no bar on the part of the respondent authorities in proceeding to issue the impugned communication dated 16.06.2017, for recovery of its dues from the subsidy that would now become due for payment to the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions. 15. Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel, by referring to the communication dated 16.06.2017, has submitted that the NEDFi authorities were only requested not to disburse any subsidy amount to the defaulters mentioned in the list set out in the communication dated 16.06.2017, without prior clearance and concurrence of the Superintendent of Taxes (Recovery), Guwahati. Mr. Gogoi submits that in the ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for subsidy is approved by the District Level Committee or the State Level Committee, as the case may be, the proposal is forwarded to the Government of India. Once the proposal is approved by the DIPP, the funds are released under the scheme concerned to the NEDFi authorities along with the list of units to whom it has to be disbursed. On receipt of the funds and the list of units concerned, the NEDFi authorities take necessary action for disbursement of the fund to the eligible units. However, before releasing the subsidy amounts to the respective units, the NEDFi authorities are mandated to ensure that outstanding dues if any, of the State and Central Governments, Nationalized Banks and Government Financial Institutions are recovered. 19. Mr. Das has further submitted that the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions, have not disclosed details of the pending claims made by them for release of subsidy and/or the scheme under which such claim was made by them. He further submits that the NEDFi authorities had not received any approved proposal for release of subsidy amounts for payment to the petitioners, nor, any money in this connection was sanctioned by the DIPP. In t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made only in respect of any claim for subsidy made by any of the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions, under the various Industrial policies formulated by the Central Government from time to time. 24. In the event, any of the petitioners involved in the above noted writ petitions have set up its industries, under the Industrial policies formulated by the State Government concerned, the NEDFi authorities, not being appointed as a disbursal agency for such schemes formulated by the State Government, the recovery so sought to be made of subsidy amounts, in respect of subsidies claimed by the petitioners concerned, under the Industrial policy formulated by the State Government would not be so liable to be made from the NEDFi authorities. Accordingly, the communication dated 16.06.2017, insofar as, it relates to recovery of claim of subsidy amounts made by the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions, under the Industrial policies formulated by the State Government concerned, would have got no application. 25. This Court now proceeds to consider the challenge to the communication dated 16.06.2017, by deeming it to be in relation to a claim made by the petitioners in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3,747,961 18 M/s Narayani Minerals 4,224,887 0 0 4,224,887 19 M/s JSB Cement LLP 1110778462 0 11,264,678 122,043,140 20 M/s NECEM Cement Ltd 151,998,255 0 0 151,998,255 21 M/s NECEM Cement Ltd 68,968,897 0 0 68,968,897 747,734,864 450,064,012 377,435,270 157,523,4146 These manufacturing units avail various types of subsidies like capital investment subsidy, transport subsidy etc., through the NEDFI. Since the above named defaulters failed to pay Govt. dues, therefore, I request you to disburse any subsidy to the said defaulter without prior clearance/concurrence of the undersigned in the interest of Govt. revenue. Yours faithfully, (S.P Medhi) Superintendent of Taxes (Recovery), Guwahati. 26. A perusal of the communication dated 16.06.2017, would bring to the forefront that the Superintendent of Taxes (Recovery), Guwahati, had projected therein, that the industries whose names has been set out, including the petitioners herein, had defaulted in payment of taxes under various Taxation Laws in vogue, as of then. The taxes due to the industries whose names has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o pay the amount due from the dealer or person liable in respect of the arrears of tax, interest, penalty etc. 28. The subsidy amounts claimed by the petitioners is required to be processed in the manner laid down in the Industrial policies concerned and the notifications issued in this direction from time to time by the Central Government. Thereafter, on the amounts involved being approved, after the same is processed by the competent authorities of the State Government, by the DIPP and amounts released, the NEDFi authorities would be required to disburse the same to the concerned authority. Accordingly, on the amounts being approved by the Committees concerned and its subsequent approval by the DIPP and release of money, the amounts of subsidy due to an industry would be held as having become due to it. 29. In the event, the amount of subsidy after being processed, becomes due for payment to an Industry concerned through the NEDFi authorities, and it being also mandated under the industrial policies as well as the notifications issued by the Central Government from time to time, that such disbursal of subsidy by NEDFi authorities must be so made after the outstanding dues, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....date interference from this Court. 33. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court is also required to consider the contentions made by the petitioners in the writ petitions as well as by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, during the hearing of the matters, that the amounts as set out against each of the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions, in the communication dated 16.06.2017 is fictitious; inasmuch as, the said amount of default was so arrived at without first reconciling the same with the payment of tax amounts made by the petitioners over the period of time. 34. The contentions made by the petitioners, in this connection, in their writ petitions, including the communications brought on record in support of such request being made, having not been disputed by the Taxation Authorities, by way of filing an affidavit, this Court is left with no other alternative but to hold that the amount of liability computed in respect of each of the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions, in the communication dated 16.06.2017 has been so done without considering the claim of the petitioners herein, of having made payments of the amounts due from time to t....