ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE J. - (1.) APPELLANT set up a small-scale industrial unit after being registered with the Directorate of Cottage and Small Scale Industries. The appellant was engaged in the manufacturing of sodium petroleum sulphonate (hereinafter referred to as "sps" ). According to the appellant, SPS was a chemical component which was commonly known as detergent other than soap. The State Government provided for incentive to the small-scale detergent manufacturers under the West Bengal Industrial Promotion (Assistance to Industrial Unit) Scheme, 1994 by which the sales tax collected out of sale of detergent to a substantial extent was to be paid back to the manufacturer as and by way of subsidy and/or incentive. Accordingly, the petitioner claimed subsidy, which was not extended to the petitioner by the concerned authority. The petitioner moved a writ petition being W. P. No. 717 of 2000 when the learned single Judge directed the authority to consider his representation and dispose of the same after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, the concerned authority gave personal hearing to the representative of the writ petitioner and by a reasoned order dated April 11, 2000 appearing at pages 51-53 of the paper book rejected the prayer of the petitioner.
(2.) THE said reasoned order was challenged by the writ petitioner by filing the instant writ petition being W. P. No. 1703 of 2000. On analysis of the said reasoned order the following facts reveal : I. The Directorate of Cottage and Small Scale Industries treated SPS as detergent while giving SSI registration certificate to the petitioner. II. In the Central Excise Tariff Index SPS was indexed under tariff item 34. 02 where it was described as detergent. III. According to the authority, treating SPS as detergent by the Directorate of Cottage and Small Scale Industries as well as by Central Excise was not enough to extend subsidy under the said scheme of 1994. IV. Since M/s. Sun Oil Company the purchaser of SPS wrote to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise that they had been purchasing SPS for manufacturing rust preventive oil and cutting oil, SPS could not be considered as detergent. Hence subsidy claimed by the petitioner could not be extended to them.
(3.) THE learned single Judge heard and disposed of the writ petition by judgment and order dated January 28, 2002 ([2002] 128 STC 50 (Cal)), appearing at pages 79-89 of the paper book. The learned Judge held that the respondents - authorities had power to decide the matter and to pass appropriate order. Whether such power was exercised in violation of the jurisdiction granted to the authority or was exercised in excess of the jurisdiction was not open to the court for judicial review. According to the learned Judge since the authority gave personal hearing and passed a reasoned order and came to a conclusion that SPS was used as a lubricating agent and not detergent, the court did not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the authority. The learned Judge also observed that the writ petitioner could not produce any evidence before the authority to hold that SPS was nothing but a detergent.;