| The Tax Publishers 2020 TaxPub(VAT) 0092 (Chhatt-HC) CHHATTISGARH STATE INFRASTRUCTURE COST FIXED CAPITAL INVESTMENT SUBSIDY RULES, 2004
Where State of Chhattisgarh subsequently issued Notification dated 10-8-2011, curtailing benefit of concession payable under Investment Subsidy Scheme, whereby maximum limit (which was originally fixed as 25% of the investment subject to a maximum of 5 years'of sales tax paid) was restricted as 'Rs. 3 crores', it was declared that action of State was not proper and petitioners were entitled to have benefit of Investment Subsidy to an extent of 25% of infrastructure cost, subject to a ceiling of Sales Tax/VAT/CST paid in State for the first 'five' years.
|
Investment subsidy - Eligibility - Conditions precedent - Maximum limit, originally fixed as criteria of eligibility of subsidy scheme was restricted
Issue was as regards benefits of Investment subsidy granted under Chhattisgarh State Infrastructure Cost Fixed Capital Investment Subsidy Rules, 2004 framed and published with retrospective effect from 1-11-2004. Entitlement for a subsidy adjustment/reimbursement of 25% of the infrastructure cost for establishing industry outside industrial area, was eligible up to a maximum amount equivalent to the amount of commercial tax/central sales tax paid in the State for 5 years. State subsequently issued Notification dated 10-8-2011, virtually curtailing benefit of concession payable under Investment Subsidy Scheme, whereby maximum limit (which was originally fixed as 25% of the investment subject to a maximum of 5 years' sales tax paid) was restricted as 'Rs. 3 crores'. Held: Course of action pursued by State in case of petitioners herein, curtailing benefit of Investment Subsidy, which ought to have been extended to them on strength of the original Industrial Policy 2004-2009 and declared in Investment Subsidy Rules, 2005 (as originally notified in Gazette) was not correct or proper. It was declared that petitioners were entitled to have benefit of Investment Subsidy to an extent of 25% of infrastructure cost, subject to a ceiling of the Sales Tax/VAT/CST paid in State for the first 'five' years. All orders/proceedings passed in case of petitioner, insofar as they stood against aforesaid declaration, were set aside.
REFERRED : M/s. Manuelsons Hotels Private Limited v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2016) 6 SCC 766 Kusumam Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors. (2008) 13 SCC 213 MRF Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sales Tax & Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 139 State of Orissa & Ors. v. Mangalam Timber Products Ltd. Etc. (2008) 13 SCC 213 DCM Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. (1997) 104 STC 590 (SC) P.T.R. Exports (Madras) (P) Ltd. & Ors. v. The Union of India & Ors. (1996) 5 SCC 268 : 1996 TaxPub(EX) 0932 (SC) Kasinka Trading v. Union of India (1995) 1 SCC 274 : 1994 TaxPub(EX) 1128 (SC) Union of India & Ors. v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. & Ors. 1985 4 SCC 369 : 1985 TaxPub(EX) 0419 (SC) Col. A.S. Sangwan v. Union of India (Uoi) & Ors. 1980 (Supp) SCC 559 UOI v. Indo Afghan Agencies (1968) 2 SCR 366 State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. v. VM Extrusions (P) Ltd. & Anr. (2014) 53 TLD 215
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|