M/S Vivek Agrotech PVT. LTD. vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court acknowledged the submissions from both sides. Given that the issue involved a policy decision by the State Government and that a similar matter had been directed for decision by the Court, the present writ petition was disposed of. The Court directed Respondent No. 1 (State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Commerce and Industries) to take a decision on the petitioner's pending representations at the earliest, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The petitioner was also granted liberty to file a fresh representation if they so desired. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the entitlement to subsidy post-GST implementation, leaving the decision to the State Government's policy-making process.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Vivek Agrotech Pvt. Ltd., is a registered company that received benefits of subsidy/Protsahan Sahayta Rashi under the Industrial Policy of November 30, 2015, and an agreement dated June 24, 2017. These benefits were provided until June 30, 2017. The petitioner claims that after the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime came into force on July 1, 2017, these subsidy benefits were discontinued. The petitioner argues that they made investments based on the Industrial Policy and the subsequent agreement, and the change in tax regime should not deny them the promised benefits. They also point to a similar case, WPC 614/2020 involving "ABIS Exports India Private Limited," which was disposed of by the Court directing the respondents to decide on the petitioner's representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to continue receiving the benefits of subsidy/Protsahan Sahayta Rashi under the Industrial Policy dated 30.11.2015 and the agreement dated 24.06.2017, despite the introduction of the GST regime from 01.07.2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner invested based on the existing Industrial Policy and agreement, and a change in the tax regime should not disentitle them from benefits granted as a policy decision by the State Government. They rely on the fact that other industries have received similar benefits and cite the case of "ABIS Exports India Private Limited" (WPC 614/2020) where a similar representation was directed to be decided. Revenue's contention: The State counsel submitted that the issue requires a policy decision by the State Government and requested time for a decision, noting that any decision would be applicable to other similar establishments. They also stated that verification is needed to ascertain if the claim in the "ABIS Exports India Private Limited" case is similar to the petitioner's claim.