Progressive Packaging vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the respondents had complied with the order of the appellate authority by accepting the petitioner's investment towards construction vide their order dated 05/01/2022. However, the Court found that the benefit of Clause 9(a) and 9(b) of the policy dated 22/06/2018 had not been extended to the petitioner. The Court noted that the respondents' reasoning for denying these benefits, based on the ineligibility for the 2014 policy, was insufficient, especially since a fresh circular dated 22/06/2018 was issued post-GST regime, which the petitioner was relying upon. Therefore, the Court found that the respondents had not extended the aforesaid benefit to the petitioner. The Court was inclined to allow the petition and directed the respondents to extend the benefit of the order passed on 05/01/2022 to the petitioner within a period of 3 months. The ratio decidendi is that post-GST policy modifications, if relied upon by an applicant, must be considered for granting benefits, and the denial based on pre-GST policy ineligibility is not sustainable if the subsequent policy supersedes or modifies the earlier one.

Facts

The petitioner, Progressive Packaging, filed a writ petition seeking to enforce an order dated 11/01/2021 passed by the appellate authority (Commissioner Industries). This order directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's investment in building construction as part of its total fixed capital assets and grant industrial promotion policy incentives. Despite this order and a subsequent representation, the petitioner alleged non-compliance by the General Manager, DIC. The respondents filed a reply, and the Court noted that an order dated 05/01/2022 had been passed accepting the petitioner's investment in construction. However, benefits under Clause 9(a) and 9(b) of the 2018 policy were not granted, citing ineligibility for the 2014 policy benefits. The petitioner relied on the 2018 circular, issued after the GST regime.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents are bound by the order dated 11/01/2021 passed by the appellate authority, directing them to consider the petitioner's investment in building construction for capital asset calculation and grant incentives under the industrial promotion policy. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits under Clause 9(a) and 9(b) of the Circular dated 22/06/2018, which modified the earlier policy post-GST regime, considering their investment in building construction. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the appellate authority's order was binding on the respondents, who had not challenged it. They further contended that the respondents had not complied with the order despite a representation. The petitioner relied on the 2018 circular, which was issued after the GST regime, to claim benefits under Clause 9(a) and 9(b). Respondents' Arguments: The respondents' reply indicated compliance with the appellate authority's order regarding the acceptance of investment in construction. However, they denied benefits under Clause 9(a) and 9(b) of the 2018 policy, stating that the petitioner could not avail benefits of the 2014 policy. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondents regarding the binding nature of the appellate order or the interpretation of the 2018 circular.