M/S Bidasaria Fenster Solutions vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Bidasaria Fenster Solutions, filed a writ petition seeking directions to the respondents (various departments of the Government of Bihar) to grant the remaining incentive towards reimbursement of 80% SGST payments as per the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011. The petitioner had previously approached this Court in CWJC No. 11516 of 2021, and pursuant to a co-ordinate bench's order dated 28.03.2024, filed an online application for SGST reimbursement claims for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2024. However, this application remained undisposed of. The petitioner sought directions to adhere to the 2011 policy, not to demand extraneous documents, and to provide the full incentive, including reimbursement of VAT/ET/CST and SGST.

Held

The Court directed that the petitioner's claim, which was placed at pages 20 to 62, would be disposed of in accordance with the terms of the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011, if it had not already been disposed of. The Court noted the petitioner's submission that an online application for SGST reimbursement claims for the period 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2024 had been filed following a previous order of the Court in CWJC No. 11516 of 2021, and that this application had not yet been disposed of. The respondents' counsel assured that the claim would be dealt with as per the policy. The Court found this submission satisfactory and disposed of the writ petition on these terms. The ratio decidendi is that administrative authorities must act in accordance with the policies under which incentives are granted and dispose of pending claims within a reasonable time, especially when directed by the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are obligated to grant the remaining incentive towards reimbursement of 80% SGST payments made by the petitioner as per the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011? (Question of law) 2. Whether the respondents are deviating from the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011, by not granting the subsidy as per law, despite a previous direction from this Court in CWJC No. 11516 of 2021? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the respondents have failed to dispose of their SGST reimbursement claims filed online as per the directions of this Court in CWJC No. 11516 of 2021. They contended that the respondents should adhere to the Industrial Policy 2011, grant the subsidy as per law, and not demand documents not required by the policy. They sought reimbursement of 80% VAT/ET/CST and SGST payments for 10 years, subject to the ceiling of 300% of capital invested, as stipulated in clause 3 of the 2011 policy. Respondents' Arguments: The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner's claim, placed at pages 20 to 62 of the petition, would be disposed of in accordance with the terms of the policy, if it had not already been disposed of.