M/S Db Corp Limited vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

M/s DB Corp Limited, the petitioner, sought a writ of mandamus from the Patna High Court to direct the Bihar government authorities to implement the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011. The petitioner claimed an outstanding amount of Rs. 99.9 Lacs under various heads, including subsidy on investment in plants and machinery, subsidy for captive power generation/DG sets, and reimbursement for electricity duty paid. The petitioner also sought directions to quash any orders denying these claims and to declare that post-production incentives like GST and VAT reimbursement cannot be withheld or denied. The petitioner argued that once a proposal is approved by the State Investment Promotion Board (SIPB), no further approval is required, and disbursal of entitlements should not be interfered with.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim. The petitioner was granted liberty 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 from its presentation. The Court emphasized that while considering the representation, the principles of natural justice must be followed, and due opportunity of hearing should be afforded to the parties. The petitioner was also granted liberty to approach the High Court by way of a separate petition if aggrieved by the order on the representation, and to take recourse to 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. All issues on facts and law were left open.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Respondent Authorities are obligated to implement the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011, and pay the petitioner's claimed entitlement of Rs. 99.9 Lacs for subsidies and reimbursements (Question of law and fact)? 2. Whether the Respondent Authorities erred in withholding or denying the petitioner's claims for subsidies and reimbursements on the ground that the proposal of the 'Competent Authority' lacked further approval, despite SIPB approval (Question of law)? 3. Whether post-production incentives such as Reimbursement for GST paid, VAT paid/Electricity Duty paid, AMG/MMG paid can be kept pending or denied (Question of law)? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the Respondent Authorities are legally bound to implement the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011, and disburse the entitled amounts. They argued that once a proposal is approved by the SIPB, no other approval is necessary, citing a Division Bench judgment of the High Court and confirmation by the Supreme Court. The petitioner further argued that the authorities cannot withhold or discontinue subsidies and reimbursements accorded under the policy and that timely payment of VAT/GST reimbursements is a duty of the respondents, without unnecessary technicalities. Respondent's Arguments: No specific arguments were recorded for the Respondent/State in the provided judgment.