IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16089 of 2009 1. M/S MAHABIR PETRO PRODUCTS LTD, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS CORPORATE AND REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED MARWARI MOHALLA, BEGUSARAI AND CARRYING BUSINESS THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI PRADEEP KUMAR MASKARA SON OF LATE SHIV DAYAL MASKARA, RESIDENT OF MARWARI MOHALLA P.S, DISTT- BEGUSARAI Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. COMMISSIONER, BIHAR FINANCE (COMMERCIAL TAXES) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, 3. DY. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, BEGUSARAI CIRCLE, BEGUSARAI 4. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, BEGUSARAI (CTO) 5. THE COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER, BEGUSARAI ----------- 4/ 03/12/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 4.7.209 of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, insofar as it denies him the benefit of 1% Central Sales Tax under the Industrial Incentive Policy, 2006 for the period ‘1.4.2006 to 11.10.2006’. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Industrial Incentive Policy becomes operational from 1.4.2006. The benefits thereunder have, therefore, to be made available from that date. The issuance of a notification on 12.10.2006 by the State Government granting the benefit of 1% Central Sales Tax cannot be made prospective from the date of the notification but have to be given from 1.4.2006. Learned counsel for the State opposes the - 2 - application to submit that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits prior to the date of the notification and therefore the impugned order calls for no interference. It is next submitted that it has to be kept in mind that the notification has been issued on 12.10.2006 and the writ petition has been filed on 12.11.2009 after the petitioner has collected Sales Tax at the rate of 4% from his consumers. The matter involves the interpretation of the Industrial Incentive Policy. The petitioner has his interpretation that all benefits have to flow from 1.4.2006. The notification dated 24.10.2006 is specific that it comes into force with effect from the date of issue. The Industrial Incentive Policy which has been placed during submissions talks of new units, sick and to be revived units. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it covers existing units also under the Definition Clause-2. The Industrial Incentive Policy in Clause-12 provides for monitoring and review of the policy by a Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of the Secretary, Industries. The Court does not consider it prudent to decide the interpretation of the petitioner and the Department of Commercial Taxes to arrive at its own view of what was the scope, intent and purpose of the - 3 - Industrial Incentive Policy. A judicial review, perhaps, at this stage is premature. The Committee constituted for monitoring and review is the expert and competent body to first decide the issue whereafter the question of judicial review of the order of the Committee may arise. If the petitioner represents before the Secretary, Industries, it is expected that he shall constitute the necessary Committee within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order before him and the Committee shall proceed to consider the matter granting due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and then pass final orders within a maximum period of two months from the date that the Committee grants audience to the petitioner. Needless to state that if the Committee concurs with the view taken by the Department of Commercial Taxes, the petitioner shall have the right to challenge the same. But if the Committee takes a view at variance with the Department of Commercial Taxes to the benefit of the petitioner, the order of the Department of Commercial Taxes shall not be an impediment in the implementation of the order by the Committee which is expected to issue necessary orders to give full effect and purpose to the policy keeping in mind all aspects - 4 - including unjust enrichment pointed out by the learned counsel for the State. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)