Disposed

Carlsberg India Private Limited v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC16 Dec 2020CWJC/10742/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ directing the State of Bihar to release a withheld VAT Reimbursement amount under the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011. The court disposed of the petition allowing withdrawal of the present petition with liberty to challenge the subsequent rejection order in a fresh writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to file a fresh writ petition challenging the rejection order.

Carlsberg India Private Limited Vs The State of Bihar — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10742 of 2019

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Carlsberg India Private Limited having registered Office at 4th Floor, Rectangle No.1, Commercial Complex, D4, Saket, New Delhi 110017 and Corporate Office at 3rd Floor, Tower A, Paras Twin Towers, Sector 54, Guraon 122 002, Haryana-through its Manager, Legal Shashank Joshi, aged about 38 years, Son of Sri Suresh Joshi, resident of Shiv Nagar Colony, P.S. City, Police Station, District-Bhiwani/ Haryana.

¶4

... ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Principal secretary, Department of Commercial Taxes, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Danapur Circle, District Patna.

¶9

The principal Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶10

The Director of Industries, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶11

... ... Respondents

¶12

======================================================

¶13

Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr.Satyabir Bharti, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr.Vikash Kumar (SC11)

¶14

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH)

¶16

Date : 16-12-2020

¶17

Heard Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Vikash Kumar, learned Standing Counsel 11 representing the State.

¶18

2. Writ petition has been preferred for the following

¶19

reliefs:-

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.10742 of 2019 dt.16-12-2020 2/3

¶21

(i) Issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release and make payment of a sum of Rs.5,79,31,763/- being the VAT Reimbursement amount, payable to the petitioner under the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011, which despite having accrued and payable to the petitioner, has been withheld, without any just and reasonable cause;

¶22

(ii) To direct the respondents to pay interest @ 18% per annum from the date the aforesaid incentive/subsidy, became due and payable to the petitioner under the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011;

¶23

(iii) To pass such other order(s) as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the present case.

¶24

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the writ petition, petitioner’s claim for VAT Reimbursement, has been rejected by the Director, Industries, Government of Bihar, Patna (respondent no.5) under Letter No.4514 dated 12.12.2018 on the ground that the Unit is closed, and in that view of the matter, he seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition, with liberty to challenge Letter No.4514 dated 12.12.2018, in a separate writ petition. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that respondents may be directed to supply the petitioner a copy of the order on the basis of which his claim for VAT reimbursement has been rejected, within a period of four weeks from today.

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.10742 of 2019 dt.16-12-2020 3/3

¶26

4. Learned counsel for the State submits that he would be serving a copy of the order in question to learned counsel for the petitioner within the said stipulated period.

¶27

5. In view of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, instant writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh writ petition.

¶28

(Sanjay Karol, CJ)

¶29

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)

¶30

Shashi

¶31

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	22.12.2020
Transmission Date

Carlsberg India Private Limited v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Carlsberg India Private Limited v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Prakash Verma Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

The State of Bihar and Ors. Vs Bachchu Das and Anr.

Thakur Traders Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Kaytx-Ubc-Bc-Jv Vs The State of Bihar

Ubc-Kipl-Gil-Jv Vs The State of Bihar

Ubc Kipl Gil Jv Vs The State of Bihar