IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9669 of 2008 DEEPAK VEGPRO PVT.LTD. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : Mr.S.D.Sanjay, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, Junior Counsel to Additional Advocate General-IX ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------ Dated, the 13th August, 2008 The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, has prayed for the following reliefs: (i) For a direction to the Respondent to act in terms of Clause 2(vi) of the Industrial Policy Resolution, 2006 and to reimburse & release the amount of Bihar Value Added tax deposited by the Petitioner, which has been wrongly withheld by the Respondent no.3; (ii) For a direction to the Respondents to either make cash reimbursement without any further delay or by way of adjustment against the future liability of Bihar Value Added tax of the Petitioner; & (iii) For a direction to reimburse the amount of Bihar Value Added Tax with interest for the delay in - 2 - making the refund and for any other relief (s) for which the Petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that based on the promise made by the Government of Bihar vide Industrial Incentive Policy, 2006, the petitioner set up its new industrial unit at Durgawati in the district of Kaimur by making substantial investment in Vanaspati unit and it commenced its production in August, 2007. The petitioner claims to have deposited amount of VAT and a pass book is said to have been issued to the petitioner under the signature of General Manager, District Industries Center, Bhabhua on 27th of September, 2007. The petitioner claims to have applied for reimbursement in terms of Industrial Incentive Policy, 2006 by making an application along with the passbook on 4th of March, 2008 which followed by another letter dated 17th March, 2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite fulfilment of all requisite conditions and eligibility under the Industrial Incentive Policy, 2006, the reimbursement of the amount of VAT has not been made. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.4. According to that, there are pre-requisite conditions for grant of reimbursement which, inter alia, include identification of the eligibility of the claimant by Prescribed Officer of the Industries Department. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has not furnished the certificate of the Prescribed Officer of the Industries Department - 3 - that it is eligible for facility of reimbursement of the amount of VAT. The quantum of entitlement as well as detailed project report are also said to have not been furnished. 4. The thrust of the argument of the counsel for the petitioner, is that no additional requirement vide communication dated 21st September, 2007 could have been imposed other than that provided in the Industrial Incentive Policy, 2006. Counsel strenuously urged that the communication dated 21st September, 2007 addressed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to Commercial Taxes authorities, particularly Clause 4 thereof is inconsistent with the Industrial Incentive Policy, 2006 and that the authorities cannot be permitted to insist upon compliance of Clause 4 of the communication dated 21st September, 2007. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and others Vs. Suprabhat Steel Ltd & others, (1999) 1 SCC 31. 5. Despite that Clause 4 of the communication dated 21st September, 2007 was within the knowledge of the petitioner, it is pertinent to notice that in the entire writ petition, there is no averment that Clause 4 is inconsistent with the Industrial Incentive Policy, 2006. Even otherwise upon a close scan of the Industrial Incentive Policy, 2006 and the communication dated 21st September, 2007, we find that there is nothing any inconsistent in the communication dated 21st September, 2007 and the Industrial Incentive Policy, 2006. 6. Clause 4 of the Industrial Incentive Policy, 2006 itself - 4 - provides that the amount of reimbursement shall be made by the Authorised Officer of the Industries Department on certified format. Obviously, it pre supposes certification of the format by some competent authority. In this background, if the authority has been insisting that the eligibility of the petitioner must be certified by the Industries Department, there is nothing wrong in that, nor it can be said that it is inconsistent with the Industrial Incentive Policy, 2006. 7. In what we have said above, the judgment of the Supreme court in the case of Suprabhat Steel Limited and others has no application. 8. We, accordingly, find no justification to entertain the writ petition. It is dismissed in limine. 9. However, we observe that if all the requirements for reimbursement of VAT amount is met by the petitioner in accord with the Industrial Incentive Policy, 2006 and the guidelines issued by the Commissioner Commercial Taxes on 21st of September, 2007, the amount of VAT to the extent it is permissible under the Industrial Incentive Policy, 2006 shall be reimbursed to the petitioner within four weeks of fulfilment of all requirements. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil