Disposed

M/S Ishwar Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 Jan 2024WP(C)/4898/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claim for transport subsidy; part of the sanctioned amount was released and the balance held back for tax dues. Court directed petitioner to file proof of clearance of dues within 7 days and authorities to examine, pass a speaking order and release the balance within 21 days.

What did the court decide?

Directions to submit documents proving tax dues cleared; authority to examine, pass speaking order and release balance subsidy amount within 21 days.

M/S Ishwar Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010120282013

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/4898/2013

¶5

M/S ISHWAR FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.

¶6

REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI SANWAL MAL AGARWAL, S/O- LT. CHETRAM AGARWAL, R/O- TINSUKIA TOWN, P.O. and DIST.- TINSUKIA, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA and 4 ORS REP. BY THE SECY., MINISTRY OF COMMERCE and INDUSTRY, GOVT. OF INDIA, UDYOG BHAWAN, NEW DELHI.

¶9

2:THE PRINCIPAL SECY. GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPTT. OF INDUSTRIES DISPUR GHY- 6.

¶10

3:NEDFI REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN and MANAGING DIRECTOR NEDFI BHAWAN DISPUR GHY- 6.

¶11

4:THE COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES and COMMERCE DEPTT. GOVT. OF ASSAM UDYOG BHAWAN BAMUNIMAIDAN GHY- 21.

¶12

5:THE ADDL. DIRECTOR US DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES and COMMERCE ASSAM GHY- 21

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS.P GOSWAMI

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.P DAS

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶17

ORDER

¶18

04-01-2024

¶19

Heard Ms. N. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri A. Kalita, learned Standing Counsel, Industries and Commerce Department whereas Shri G. Das, learned counsel is present for the NEDFi.

¶20

The matter pertains to a claim for transport subsidy.

¶21

This Court has however been apprised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of this writ petition, an amount of Rs.15,07,973/-(Fifteen Lakh Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Three) which was approved by the State Level Committee has been deposited to the NEDFi. Subsequently, out of the aforesaid amount, Rs.9,23,021/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Twenty Three Thousand Twenty One) has been released to the petitioner by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Government of India. This Court has also been apprised that so far as the balance of Rs.6,47,952/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Two) is concerned, due to certain dues with the Tax Department, that has been held back.

¶22

Ms. Saikia, the learned counsel for the petitioner has however submitted that the said dues have also been cleared and in this regard she has placed on record certain documents in support of the said plea.

¶23

Both Shri Kalita and Shri Das, the learned counsel for the respondents do not have complete instructions in this regard.

¶24

In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of by making the following directions.

¶25

The petitioner may submit copies of the supporting documents with regard to the

¶26

Page No.# 3/3

¶27

plea of clearing the dues of the Taxation Department through the appropriate authorities within a period of 7 days from today and upon such receipt, the matter may be examined and thereafter appropriate steps be taken for release of the balance amount in question. The appropriate authority is also required to pass a speaking order. The entire exercise be completed within a period of 21 days for the date of receipt of the application.

¶28

Writ petition accordingly disposed of.

¶29

Comparing Assistant

M/S Ishwar Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ishwar Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manju Bibi Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Nagen Chandra Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Kalyan Nath Vs the Principal Secretary, Govt of Assam and 3 Ors.

The Workman Md. Saffauddin Ali Vs the Management of Koomtai Tea Estate and Anr.

Alakesh Baishya Vs the Management of Apollo Hospitals

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and 4 Ors. Vs M/S S H Enterprise