M/S Barak Ispat PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Barak Ispat Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a notification dated October 5, 2017. This notification, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion), introduced a scheme of budgetary support that allegedly curtailed benefits previously promised under the North East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy (NEIIPP), 2007. The respondents include the Union of India and various government departments and officials related to Finance, Commerce and Industry, and GST.
Held
The Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition had already been decided by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court in Star Cement Ltd. v. Union of India & 6 Ors., which in turn relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in M/s Hero Motorcorp Ltd. v. Union of India. The Supreme Court, in Hero Motorcorp Ltd., while dismissing appeals, found that although the appellants might not have a claim in law, they had a legitimate expectation for their claims to be considered. Consequently, the Supreme Court permitted the appellants to make representations to the respective State Governments and the GST Council, with an assurance that these representations would be given due consideration. Following this precedent, the High Court dismissed the writ petition but granted similar liberty to the petitioner to submit appropriate representations before the State Government and the GST Council, in terms of the findings and observations of the Supreme Court in the Hero Motorcorp Ltd. judgment. The State Government and GST Council were directed to consider these representations in accordance with law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned Notification dated October 5, 2017, which introduced a budgetary support scheme, is liable to be set aside and quashed for curtailing benefits promised under the NEIIPP, 2007? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the notification illegally curtailed the benefits promised under the NEIIPP, 2007. Revenue's contention: The respondents did not explicitly record arguments, but the judgment indicates reliance on Supreme Court and Coordinate Bench decisions. The judgment notes that the issue involved in the present writ petition has already been decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Star Cement Ltd. v. Union of India & 6 Ors., which followed the Supreme Court's judgment in M/s Hero Motorcorp Ltd. v. Union of India.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Date : 22.09.2026 Heard Ms. N. Hawelia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the all the respondents.
By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking setting aside and quashing of the impugned Notification dated 05.10.2017, wherein the Government of Page No.# 3/4 India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) framed a scheme of budgetary support which curtailed the benefits as promised under NEIIPP, 2007. 3. It is submitted at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties that the issue involved in the present writ petition has already been decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Star Cement Ltd. v. Union of India & 6 Ors., in WP(C) No. 2208/2019, in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Hero Motorcorp Ltd. v. Union of India, in Civil Appeal No. 7405/ 2022, decided on 17.10.2022. 4. Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment, i.e, Star Cement Ltd (supra) reads as under: “143. In view of the very recent Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in M/s Hero Motorcorp Limited –vs Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 7405 of 2022) dated 17th October, 2022 and in view of the authoritative findings rendered by the Apex Court in the said Judgment, nothing further is required to be decided in the present proceedings. The findings rendered in the said Judgment by the Apex Court also squarely covers the issue raised in the present proceedings. It is seen that although the Apex Court has dismissed the appeals preferred by the appellants, herein, namely, Hero Motorcorp Limited and Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited, the Apex Court also arrived at a finding that although the appellants therein may not have a claim in law, they do have a legitimate expectation that their claim deserves due consideration. The Apex Court therefore, permitted the appellants therein to make representation to the respective State Government as well as to the GST Council and the said representations if made will be given due consideration in expeditious manner.
In view of the above representations being covered by the Apex Court dated 17.10.2022 rendered in Hero Motorcorp Limited and Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited, the writ petitions are dismissed. Since the Apex Court had granted the liberty to the appellant to prefer their
Page No.# 4/4 representations before the GST council and the State Governments in terms of the findings and observations rendered in the said Judgment, similar liberty is granted to the writ petitioners herein to prefer such representations before the State Government and the GST council provided the same are in terms of the findings and the observations of the Apex Court in the Judgment of Hero Motorcorp Limited (supra) vide Judgment dated 17th October, 2022, the writ petitions are, therefore, closed in terms of the above. No order as to cost.”
In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition may also be disposed of on similar lines.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit appropriate representations before the State Government and the GST Council in terms of the findings and observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s Hero Motorcorp Ltd. v. Union of India (supra), vide judgment dated 17.10.2022. Upon submission of such representations, the State Government and the GST Council shall consider the same in accordance with law and in the light of the findings and observations rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment.
Resultantly, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.