M/S Shree Cement Limited vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

M/s Shree Cement Limited, through its Bihar Cement Plant unit, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court. The petitioner sought directions for the disbursement of 80% reimbursement of admitted State GST for project "expansion" from July 2017 onwards, as per the Industrial Policy Resolution, 2011. The petitioner contended that this reimbursement was abruptly discontinued after March 2017. They also sought declarations that the respondents could not withhold this reimbursement, which was promised as an aid or subsidy, and that no prior approval was required for expansion to avail benefits under the policy. The petitioner argued that the discontinuation caused them financial suffering. The court noted a co-ordinate bench's decision in a similar case, M/s Sunny Stars Hotels Private Limited Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., which had attained finality after the State's Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Apex Court.

Held

The Court disposed of the petition by allowing the petitioner to approach the concerned authority by filing a representation within four weeks. The authority was directed to consider and decide the representation within four weeks of its presentation. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim, leaving all issues of fact and law open. The Court emphasized that principles of natural justice must be followed, and parties must be afforded due opportunity of hearing. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Court again by way of a separate petition if aggrieved by the authority's order, and also reserved liberty to pursue alternative remedies available in accordance with law. The Court expressed hope that the remedies would be dealt with in accordance with law and with reasonable dispatch.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Respondent Commissioner of State Taxes and other competent authorities are obligated to disburse 80% reimbursement of admitted State GST for project "expansion" from July 2017 onwards, in terms of the Industrial Policy Resolution, 2011, as per the petitioner's claim? (Question of law) 2. Can the Respondent State withhold the reimbursement of 80% of admitted State GST, which was promised as an aid or subsidy under the Industrial Policy Resolution, 2011, after the petitioner was found entitled and had received benefits for some time? (Question of law) 3. Is prior approval from any competent authority required before undertaking expansion of an existing unit to avail benefits under the Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011, specifically in terms of clause 14 read with definition at Sl. 7 of Annexure-1 (amended in 2015)? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner argued that the discontinuation of the 80% State GST reimbursement was arbitrary and illegal. They relied on the solemn promise made by the State in the Industrial Policy Resolution, 2011. - They contended that no prior approval was necessary for expansion to avail policy benefits, citing specific clauses of the policy. - The petitioner sought directions for the earliest grant of incentives to mitigate their suffering. Revenue/State's Arguments: - The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents regarding the merits of the petitioner's claim.