J. B. PARDIWALA, J. : - - (1.) By this writ -application in the nature of a public interest litigation, the petitioner, a practicing Advocate in the District Court at Gandhinagar, has brought to our notice that the State Government has issued a Government Resolution dated 1st January, 2009, providing for a loan to be paid to the respondent No.3, equal to the gross value of the Value Added Tax (for short "VAT") and Central Sales Tax payable to the State Government, which tantamountly amounts to the refund of VAT. The petitioner has brought to our notice that such Resolution has been passed by the State Government only with a view to favour the respondent No.3, Tata Motors Limited.
(2.) The case made out by the petitioner in this petition may be summarized as under : - 2.1 The petitioner is a local resident of village Adalaj, situated at the outskirts of the city of Ahmedabad. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate in the District Court at Gandhinagar and is also a Member of the Syndicate of the Gujarat University. 2.2 It is his case that the State Government has, in violation and contravention of its policy decisions, been providing fiscal incentives to the Tata Motors Limited, in the form of a loan to the Tata Motors Limited at 0.1% simple interest per annum for the amounts equal to the gross Value Added Tax and Central Sales Tax payable to the State Government, on the sale of the Nano Car and it's parts and components from the date of commencement of the sale of the Nano car. 2.3 According to the petitioner, in the year 2008, the newly introduced project of the Tata Motors Limited, viz. "Nano project" had to be shifted from Singur, West Bengal to the State of Gujarat. It is his case that only with a view to show the development by way of investment of mega projects by the multinational companies in the various sectors, the Government decided to give a loan against the same amount which would be paid by the Tata Motors Limited by way of VAT payable to the State Government on sales of Nano car manufactured at the plant in the State of Gujarat. 2.4 According to the petitioner, such a policy decision on the part of the State Government could be termed as per se illegal and against the public interest, as it amounts to refund of tax. 2.5 It is also the case of the petitioner that the State Government entered into an agreement with the Company and on the basis thereof, a Government Resolution dated 1st January, 2009 was issued. It is also his case that the State Government has already issued a cheque to the tune of Rs. 1,67,20,00,000.00 (Rupees one hundred sixty seven crore and twenty lac only) in favour of the respondent No.3, Tata Motors Limited. Such disbursement was made in March, 2013. 2.6 It is also the case of the petitioner that thereafter, a further disbursement by way of loan to the tune of Rs. 156 crore against the VAT paid by the Tata Motors Limited has been made. According to the petitioner, he has learnt through the reliable sources that the Government is on the verge of disbursing Rs. 500 crore once again by way of a loan in favour of the Tata Motors Limited. 2.7 According to the petitioner, in the Executive Meeting convened on 30th March, 2013, while discussing such issue of loan against VAT, the Chief Secretary of the State Government Mr. D. Rajagopalan had strongly objected to the same, as the same is in violation and contravention of the Government Resolutions and Policies framed from time to time. It is also the case of the petitioner that for the purpose of making the most of such arrangement with the State Government, the respondent No.3, Tata Motors Limited has been misusing the same by showing the total sales of the Nano cars, to have been made to a wholly owned subsidiary Company of the respondent No.3 in the State of Gujarat and after such sale being shown to the wholly owned subsidiary Company, the cars are indirectly sold in the different parts of the country by such wholly owned subsidiary Company. It is alleged that in such a manner, a larger amount of loan is being availed of from the State Government by showing fictitious sale in the State, which in fact, could not be said to be the true figures of the sale of the Nano cars all over the country.
(3.) In such circumstances referred to above, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : - (A). Be pleased to admit and allow the present petition. (B). Be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in nature of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ/s, order/s, and/or direction/s and thereby quashing and setting aside Government Resolution dated 01/01/2009 at ANNEXURE -C and further be pleased to quash and set aside the agreement made between State Government and the respondent No. 3 pursuant to the impugned Government resolution and further be pleased to declare the sanctioned and disbursed loan bad and void in nature and also direct the State Government Authority to recover the same from the respondent No. 3. (C). Be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in nature of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ/s, order/s, and/or direction/s and thereby declare no exemption, concession or any kind of benefit or relief on and against the collection of VAT and further be pleased to declare the sales of NANO car as a Depot Transfer instead of sale. (D). Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to stay and suspend implementation, execution and operation of the sanctioned and disbursed loan amount granted by State Government towards respondent No. 3 and further be pleased to stay and suspend implementation, execution and operation of future disbursements in favour of the respondent No. 3 in light of Government Resolution dated 01/01/2009 as well as agreement dated 31/03/2012. (E). Such other and further relief/s as may be deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may please be granted in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice. ;