Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) A decision dated May 28, 2015 negating the claim for disbursement under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2004 is under challenge in the present writ petition.
(2.) Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that, the first petitioner is entitled to subsidy under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2004. He has referred to the Scheme of 2004. He has referred to the correspondence exchanged between the parties with regard thereto. In particular reference to a writing dated May 22, 2014 issued by the first respondent, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, the quantum of incentive received by the first petitioner being Rs.2,116.49 Lakhs is admitted. As against the admitted quantum received by the first petitioner, the respondent no. 1 is seeking to adjust waiver of electricity duty claiming that the first petitioner has allegedly received Rs.679.85 Lakhs in excess. The same is not permissible inasmuch as the electricity duty spoken of in the writing dated May 22, 2014 and elsewhere, is not chargeable inasmuch as the same was not leviable under the statute. He has referred to the provisions of the Bengal Electricity Duty Act, 1935 particularly Section 3 thereof. Since the first petitioner is exempt from paying such electricity duty under such statute, it cannot be said that, the first petitioner is liable to pay such duty. Since the first petitioner is not liable to pay such duty, the question of the first petitioner receiving the benefit of duty waiver does not arise. Therefore, the first respondent is incorrect in claiming that the first petitioner has received a sum of Rs.679.85 Lakhs in excess under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2004.
(3.) Opposing the contentions of the petitioners, learned Senior Advocate for the State respondent has submitted that, the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2004 read as a whole, contemplates and stipulates a maximum limit of incentive to be received thereunder. Receipt of waiver of electricity duty by a constituent governed under the Scheme of 2004 is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculation of the receipt of incentives under the Scheme of 2004. A constituent entitled to the disbursements under the Scheme of 2004 can receive upto 100% of the Fixed Capital Investments. The Fixed Capital Investment of the first petitioner is Rs.1,436.64 Lakhs. The first petitioner has actually received a sum of Rs.2,116.49 Lakhs. Therefore, the first petitioner has received Rs.679.85 Lakhs in excess. The first petitioner has received electricity duty waiver on its application. Therefore, the value of such waiver has to be taken into consideration as a component under the Scheme of 2004 for calculating the receivable under such Scheme. He has referred to the writing dated July 26, 2007 enclosing the eligibility certificate for the Scheme of 2004 and the enclosures thereto. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Advocate for the State respondent has relied upon (Krishna Bahadur v. Purna Theatre & Ors., 2004 8 SCC 229) and (Shiv Chander More & Ors. v. Lieutenant Governor & Ors., 2014 11 SCC 744).;