AGARTALA PLASTICS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
Agartala Plastics Private Limited
STATE OF TRIPURA
Click here to view full judgement.
Akil Kureshi,J. -
(1.) The petitioner has challenged a communication dated 25.06.2020 and further prayed for grant of subsidy in terms of Tripura Industrial Investment Promotion Incentive Scheme, 2012 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Incentive Scheme).
(2.) Brief facts are as under:
Petitioner is a private limited company and is engaged in manufacturing different types of UPVC pipe and fittings, HDE coil pipes, etc. for which the petitioner had established a manufacturing unit at Bodhjung Nagar, R.K. Road, Agartala in the year 2013. The State of Tripura had framed the said scheme which envisaged grant of certain incentives in the form of subsidy to the specified industries set up on or after 01.04.2012. Such rebate would be equal to the net amount of Tripura Value Added Tax and Central Sales Tax and other taxes paid by the industry to the State Government on sale of finished goods subject to certain conditions. The petitioner was one of the eligible units and in the past had also claimed and was granted subsidy as per the terms of the said scheme. In the present petition, we are concerned with the petitioner's claim of refund of the VAT etc. under the said scheme for period between 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2016 and thereafter from 01.01.2017 to 30.06.2017. The petitioner first applied under two separate applications for such refund to the District Industries Centre on 23.06.2020 along with all necessary documents. These applications of the petitioner were rejected by the District Industries Centre by two separate orders both dated 25.06.2020. The sole ground cited for rejection of the petitioner's applications was that the claim was submitted after expiry of two years from the period to which the claim related.
(3.) The petitioner thereupon again approached the District Industrial Centre under a communication dated 13.07.2020 and made out detailed grounds for not being able to apply for subsidy earlier. In short, the case the petitioner projected was that along with such applications, the petitioner had to produce the certificate of payment of taxes by the VAT authority which the petitioner, had though applied in time, was not granted by the said authority for a long time despite reminders from the petitioner. This application of the petitioner was not entertained upon which the present petition came to be filed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.