9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner-company, for grant of increased subsidy at 75 per cent of the additional tax liability, instead of 50 per cent as allowed earlier. The matter relates to Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme, 2003 ("the Scheme"/"the Scheme of 2003") as introduced on July 28, 2003. Clause 7 of the Scheme provides for capital investment subsidy that has been bifurcated into different components like interest component subsidy and wage component subsidy. Such subsidy was allowable maximum to the extent of 50 per cent of the tax payable and deposited under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (when it came into force in the State of Rajasthan with effect from April 1, 2006). The Scheme of 2003 was amended on December 2, 2005 and sub-clauses (vi) and (vii) were introduced to the said clause 7 providing, inter alia, for additional upfront subsidy to the extent of 45 per cent based on actual tax payable and deposited; and the maximum limit was increased to 75 per cent. The petitioner-company made separate applications for such subsidy in respect of two units one at Ras, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali and another at village Kushkher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar opinion that the petitioner-company satisfied all the conditions for binding down the respondent-State by the assurance and promise of increased subsidy of 75 per cent of additional tax liability for entire period of seven years especially in view of the fact that SLSC after being duly aware of the withdrawal of notification dated April 28, 2006 granted such benefit and even the entitlement certificates issued for a period of seven years for availing of subsidy at the increased rate of 75 per cent. Therefore, the question is whether the withdrawal notification dated April 28, 2006 can be applied to the petitioner-company giving it virtually retrospective effect and whether the purported clarification issued after 2% years of the withdrawal notification dated April 28, 2006 on May 22, 2008 can really shut up the increased subsidy of 75 per cent for the petitioner-company. The answer has to be in clear negative. . ." The learned single judge, accordingly, issued the writ in the following manner (page 547 in 49 VST): "51. Therefore, on an analysis of factual matrix and legal position, this court is of the opinion that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed accepting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. However, on the queries of the court regarding the methods of accounting and payment, the learned counsel for the parties submitted that they shall be placing on record the relevant submissions with necessary documents to make the position clear. The learned counsel for the parties have filed the necessary submissions and were heard further in the matter yesterday, i.e., February 7, 2012. The learned Advocate-General appearing for the appellant-State submitted that the dispute herein is essentially in relation to the direction as issued by the learned single judge for granting subsidy at 75 per cent and otherwise, there is no dispute or lis about the 50 per cent component of subsidy for which, the necessary orders regarding arrears have already been issued (annexure A/1). The learned Advocate-General submitted that the order as passed by the learned single judge entails hugs additional liability on the appellant-State and as the entitlement of the petitionercompany to subsidy at 75 per cent remains seriously in question hence, the operation of the impugned order deserves to be stayed. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted, on the other hand, that the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been held entitled to the increased subsidy at 75 per cent under the notification dated December 2, 2005 and the respondents have been directed to release the arrears of such additional subsidy and allow set-off against additional tax liability (as contained in paragraph 45 of the impugned order) is concerned, the same deserves to be stayed during the pendency of this appeal but on necessary terms and conditions, particularly that in regard to the undisputed component of subsidy, i.e., at 50 per cent. It is not in dispute even on the part of the appellants that the writ petitioner- company was and is entitled for 50 per cent subsidy but the same had been withheld since the month of May 2008 for which, certain reasons including that of pendency of the matter before the court and filing of inappropriate applications by the writ petitioner are suggested. However, without going into the alleged reason at this stage, we feel that when the appellants themselves have realised their liability for making payment of such subsidy and have indeed issued the orders releasing total arrears of subsidy at Rs. 116.79 crores, a part of this amount ought to be paid to the petitioner-company so as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
