Page No.# 1/35 GAHC010088652019 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2739/2019 JUPITER COKE INDUSTRIES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 AND HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT 1/1A, BIPLAB ANUKUL, CHANDRA STREET, 5-F ELECTRONIC CENTRE, KOLKATA- 700072 AND ITS INDUSTRIAL UNIT SITUATED AT BEHARBARI, BELTOLA, GUWAHATI-28 IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP AND IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNERS SRI NAVIN KUMAR JAIN. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND TAXATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:GENERAL MANAGER DISTRICT INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE CENTRE KAMRUP(RURAL) MIRZA D.K. COLLEGE ROAD MIRZA- 781025. 3:COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE ASSAM UDYOG BHAWAN BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI-21. 4:COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES (EARLIER KNOWN AS COMMISSIONER OF TAXES) KAR BHAWAN Page No.# 2/35 GUWAHATI. 5:ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES (EARLIER KNOWN AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF TAXES UNIT B) KAR BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 6:SUPERINTENDENT OF STATE TAXES (EARLIER KNOWN AS SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES (RECOVERY) AND BAKIJAI OFFICER) GUWAHATI KAR BHAWAN GUWAHATI. 7:NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR NEDFI HOUSE G.S. ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 ASSAM. 8:DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (F AND A) NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED NEDFI HOUSE G.S. ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. A SARAF, MR. P BARUAH,MR. Z ISLAM,MR. P DAS,MR. N N DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FINANCE AND TAXATION, SC, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,SC, NEDFI Linked Case : WP(C)/2413/2019 KAMRUP COKE INDUSTRIES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGD. UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932 AND HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT 1/1A Page No.# 3/35 BIPLAB ANUKUL CHANDRA STREET 5-F ELECTRONIC CENTRE KOLKATA-700072 AND ITS INDUSTRIAL UNIT SITUATED AT BARSOJAI BELTOLA GHY-28 IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP AND IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS REP. BY ONE OF ITS PARTNERS SRI HANSRAJ JAIN VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPTT. OF FINANCE AND TAXATION DISPUR GHY-6 2:GENERAL MANAGER DISTRICT INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE CENTER KAMRUP (R) MIRZA D.K.COLLEGE ROAD MIRZA- 781025 3:COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE ASSAM UDYOG BHAWAN BAMUNIMAIDAM GHY-21 4:COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES (EARLIER KNOWN AS COMMISSIONER OF TAXES) KAR BHAWAN GHY 5:ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES (EARLIER KNOWN AS COMMISSIONER OF TAXES UNIT B) KAR BHAWAN DISPUR GHY-6 6:SUPERINTENDENT OF STATE TAXES EARLIER KNOWN AS SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES (RECOVERY) AND BAKIJAI OFFICER GHY KAR BHAWAN GHY Page No.# 4/35 7:NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR NEDFI HOUSE G.S.ROAD DISPUR GHY-6 ASSAM 8:DY. GENERAL MANAGER (F AND A) NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. NEDFI HOUSE G.S.ROAD DISPUR GHY-6 ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : DR. A SARAF Advocate for : SC FINANCE AND TAXATION appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. Linked Case : WP(C)/2419/2019 SHIVA COKE INDUSTRIES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932 AND HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT 1/1A BIPLABI ANUKUL CHANDA STREET KOLKATA- 700072 AND ITS INDUSTRIAL UNIT SITUATED AT VILLAGE- DALMAGAON NEAR RANGIA DIST.- KAMRUP AND IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNERS SRI NAVIN KUMAR JAIN AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPTT. OF FINANCE AND TAXATION DISPUR GHY.- 781006. 2:GENERAL MANAGER Page No.# 5/35 DISTRICT INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE CENTER KAMRUP (RURAL) MIRZA D.K. COLLEGE ROAD MIRZA- 781025. 3:COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE ASSAM UDYOG BHAWAN BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI-21. 4:COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES (EARLIER KNOWN AS COMMISSIONER OF TAXEX) KAR BHAWAN GUWAHATI. 5:ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES (EARLIER KNOWN AS ASSTT. COMMISSION OF TAXES UNIT B) KAR BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 6:SUPERINTENDENT OF STATE TAXES (EARLIER KNOWN AS SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES (RECOVERY) AND BAKIJAI OFFICER) GUWAHATI KAR BHAWAN GUWAHATI. 7:NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR NEDFI HOUSE G.S. ROAD DISPUR GHY.- 781006 ASSAM. 8:DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER ( F AND A) NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED NEDFI HOUSE G.S. ROAD DISPUR GHY.- 781006 ASSAM. Page No.# 6/35 ------------ Advocate for : DR. A SARAF Advocate for : SC FINANCE AND TAXATION appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. Linked Case : WP(C)/2420/2019 SHRI BALAJI COKE INDUSTRIES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932 AND HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT 1/1A BIPLABI ANUKUL CHANDRA STREET KOLKOTA-700072 AND ITS INDUSTRIAL UNIT AT VILL. AND P.O. AZARA HATKHUWAPARA MOUZA- RAM CHARIANI DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM AND IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS REP. BY ONE OF ITS PARTNERS SRI SANJAY JAIN. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPTT. OF FINANCE AND TAXATION DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 2:GENERAL MANAGER DISTRICT INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE CENTER KAMRUP (R) MIRZA D.K. COLLEGE ROAD MIRZA-781025 3:COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE ASSAM UDYOG BHAWAN BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI-21 4:COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES (EARLIER KNOWN AS COMMISSIONER OF TAXES) KAR BHAWAN GUWAHATI Page No.# 7/35 5:ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES (EARLIER KNOWN AS ASSISTAT COMMISSINER OF TAXES UNIT B) KAR BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 6:SUPERINTENDENT OF STATE TAXES(EARLIER KNOWN AS SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES RECOVERY AND BAKIJAI OFFICER GUWAHATI KARBHAWAN GUWAHATI 7:NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR NEDFI HOUSE G.S. ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 8:DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (F AND A) NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. NEDFI HOUSE G.S.ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : DR. A SARAF Advocate for : SC FINANCE AND TAXATION appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. Linked Case : WP(C)/2429/2019 SETHI COKE INDUSTRIES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932 AND HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT 1/1A BIPLABI ANUKUL CHANDRA STREET 5F ELECTRONIC CENTRE KOLKOTA-700072 AND ITS INDUSTRIAL UNIT SITUATED AT MORANJAN NEAR RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM AND IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS REP. BY ITS SRI HANSRAJ JAIN AGE ABOUT 76 YEARS Page No.# 8/35 ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE PETITIONER FIRM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPTT. OF FINANCE AND TAXATION DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 2:GENERAL MANAGER DISTRICT INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE CENTER KAMRUP (RURAL) MIRZA D.K.COLLEGE ROAD MIRZA-781025 3:COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE ASSAM UDYOG BHAWAN BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI-21 4:COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES (EARLIER KNOWN AS COMMISSIONER OF TAXES) KAR BHAWAN GUWAHATI 5:ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES (EARLIER KNOWN AS ASSISTAT COMMISSINER OF TAXES UNIT B) KAR BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 6:SUPERINTENDENT OF STATE TAXES(EARLIER KNOWN AS SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES RECOVERY AND BAKIJAI OFFICER GUWAHATI KARBHAWAN GUWAHATI 7:NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR NEDFI HOUSE G.S. ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 Page No.# 9/35 8:DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (F AND A) NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. NEDFI HOUSE G.S.ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : DR. A SARAF Advocate for : SC FINANCE AND TAXATION appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. Linked Case : WP(C)/2438/2019 RAJ COKE INDUSTRIES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932 AND HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT 1/1A BIPLABI ANUKUL CHANDRA STREET KOLKOTA-700072 AND ITS INDUSTRIAL UNIT SITUATED AT VILL.- DALMAGAON P.S. PUTHIMARI RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM AND IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS REP. BY SRI AJAY KUMAR JAIN ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE PETITIONER FIRM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPTT. OF FINANCE AND TAXATION DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 2:GENERAL MANAGER DISTRICT INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE CENTER KAMRUP (RURAL) MIRZA D.K.COLLEGE ROAD MIRZA-781025 3:COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE Page No.# 10/35 ASSAM UDYOG BHAWAN BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI-21 4:COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES (EARLIER KNOWN AS COMMISSIONER OF TAXES) KAR BHAWAN GUWAHATI 5:ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES (EARLIER KNOWN AS ASSISTAT COMMISSINER OF TAXES UNIT B) KAR BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 6:SUPERINTENDENT OF STATE TAXES(EARLIER KNOWN AS SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES RECOVERY AND BAKIJAI OFFICE GUWAHATI KARBHAWAN GUWAHATI 7:NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR NEDFI HOUSE G.S. ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 8:DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (F AND A) NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. NEDFI HOUSE G.S.ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : DR. A SARAF Advocate for : SC FINANCE AND TAXATION appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. Linked Case : WP(C)/2437/2019 JAGATI COKES PVT. LTD. A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGD. UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT Page No.# 11/35 1932 AND HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT 1/1A BIPLAB ANUKUL CHANDRA STREET 5-F ELECTRONIC CENTRE KOLKATA-700072 AND ITS INDUSTRIAL UNIT SITUATED AT DALMAGAON NEAR RANGIA IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP GHY AND IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS REP. BY ONE OF ITS DIRECTORS SRI SANJAY JAIN AGED ABOUT 47 YRS VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPTT. OF FINANCE AND TAXATION DISPUR GHY-6 2:GENERAL MANAGER DISTRICT INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE CENTER KAMRUP (R) MIRZA D.K.COLLEGE ROAD MIRZA- 781025 3:COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE ASSAM UDYOG BHAWAN BAMUNIMAIDAM GHY-21 4:COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES (EARLIER KNOWN AS COMMISSIONER OF TAXES) KAR BHAWAN GHY 5:ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES (EARLIER KNOWN AS COMMISSIONER OF TAXES UNIT B) KAR BHAWAN DISPUR GHY-6 6:SUPERINTENDENT OF STATE TAXES EARLIER KNOWN AS SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES (RECOVERY) AND BAKIJAI OFFICER GHY Page No.# 12/35 KAR BHAWAN GHY 7:NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR NEDFI HOUSE G.S.ROAD DISPUR GHY-6 ASSAM 8:DY. GENERAL MANAGER (F AND A) NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. NEDFI HOUSE G.S.ROAD DISPUR GHY-6 ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : DR. A SARAF Advocate for : SC FINANCE AND TAXATION appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. Linked Case : WP(C)/2423/2019 JAI COKE INDUSTRIES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932 AND HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT 1/1A BIPLABI ANUKUL CHANDA STREET KOLKATA- 700072 AND ITS INDUSTRIAL UNIT SITUATED AT VILLAGE- DALMAGAON NEAR RANGIA DIST.- KAMRUP AND IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNERS SRI SANJAY JAIN AGE ABOUT 57 YEARS. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPTT. OF FINANCE AND TAXATION DISPUR GHY.- 781006. Page No.# 13/35 2:GENERAL MANAGER DISTRICT INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE CENTER KAMRUP (RURAL) MIRZA D.K. COLLEGE ROAD MIRZA- 781025. 3:COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE ASSAM UDYOG BHAWAN BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI-21. 4:COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES (EARLIER KNOWN AS COMMISSIONER OF TAXEX) KAR BHAWAN GUWAHATI. 5:ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES (EARLIER KNOWN AS ASSTT. COMMISSION OF TAXES UNIT B) KAR BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 6:SUPERINTENDENT OF STATE TAXES (EARLIER KNOWN AS SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES (RECOVERY) AND BAKIJAI OFFICER) GUWAHATI KAR BHAWAN GUWAHATI. 7:NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR NEDFI HOUSE G.S. ROAD DISPUR GHY.- 781006 ASSAM. 8:DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER ( F AND A) NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED NEDFI HOUSE G.S. ROAD DISPUR Page No.# 14/35 GHY.- 781006 ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : DR. A SARAF Advocate for : SC FINANCE AND TAXATION appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. Linked Case : WP(C)/2696/2019 SKJ COKE INDUSTRIES LTD. A LIMITED COMPANY REGD. UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT 1/1A BIPLAB ANUKUL CHANDRA STREET 5-F ELECTRONIC CENTRE KOLKATA- 700072 AND ITS INDUSTRIAL UNIT SITUATED AT PASCHIM BORAGAON NNH-37 GHY DIST- KAMRUP AND IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS REP. BY ONE OF ITS DIRECTORS SRI HANSRAJ JAIN VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPTT. OF FINANCE AND TAXATION DISPUR GHY-6 2:GENERAL MANAGER DISTRICT INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE CENTER KAMRUP (R) MIRZA D.K. COLLEGE ROAD MIRZA- 781025 3:COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE ASSAM UDYOG BHAWAN BAMUNIMAIDAM GHY-21 4:COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES (EARLIER KNOWN AS COMMISSIONER OF TAXES) Page No.# 15/35 KAR BHAWAN GHY 5:ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES (EARLIER KNOWN AS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF TAXES UNIT B) KAR BHAWAN GHY-6 6:SUPERINTENDENT OF STATE TAXES (EARLIER KNOWN AS SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES (RECOVERY) AND BAKIJAI OFFICER) GHY KAR BHAWAN GHY 7:NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR NEDFI HOUSE G.S.ROAD DISPUR GHY-6 ASSAM 8:DY. GENERAL MANAGER (F AND A) NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. NEDFI HOUSE G.S.ROAD DISPUR GHY-6 ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : DR. A SARAF Advocate for : SC FINANCE AND TAXATION appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. Linked Case : WP(C)/2426/2019 GANESH MET COKE INDUSTRIES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932 AND HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF HUSINESS AT 1/1A BIPLABI ANUKUL CHANDRA STREET 5F ELECTRONIC CENTRE KOLKATA- 700072 AND ITS INDUSTRIAL UNIT SITUATED AT AZARA Page No.# 16/35 HATKHUWAPARA RAMCHARNI DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM AND IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS REP. BY ONE OF ITS PARTNERS SRI HANSRAJ JAIN. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPTT. OF FINANCE AND TAXATION DISPUR GHY.- 781006. 2:GENERAL MANAGER DISTRICT INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE CENTER KAMRUP (RURAL) MIRZA D.K. COLLEGE ROAD MIRZA- 781025. 3:COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE ASSAM UDYOG BHAWAN BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI-21. 4:COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES (EARLIER KNOWN AS COMMISSIONER OF TAXEX) KAR BHAWAN GUWAHATI. 5:ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES (EARLIER KNOWN AS ASSTT. COMMISSION OF TAXES UNIT B) KAR BHAWAN DISPUR GHY.- 781006. 6:SUPERINTENDENT OF STATE TAXES (EARLIER KNOWN AS SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES (RECOVERY) AND BAKIJAI OFFICER) GUWAHATI Page No.# 17/35 KAR BHAWAN GUWAHATI. 7:NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR NEDFI HOUSE G.S. ROAD DISPUR GHY.- 781006 ASSAM. 8:DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER ( F AND A) NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED NEDFI HOUSE G.S. ROAD DISPUR GHY.- 781006 ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : DR. A SARAF Advocate for : SC FINANCE AND TAXATION appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. Linked Case : WP(C)/2424/2019 PARASNATH COKE INDUSTRIES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGD UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932 AND HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT 1/1A BIPLAB ANUKUL CHANDRA STREET 5F ELECTRONIC CENTRE KOLKATA- 700072 AND ITS INDUSTRIAL UNIT SITUATED AT BORSOJAI BELTOLA GUWAHATI- 28 DIST-KAMRUP AND IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS REP. BY ONE OF ITS PARTNERS SRI AJAY KUMAR JAIN VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM DEPTT OF FINANCE AND TAXATION DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 2:GENERAL MANAGER Page No.# 18/35 DISTRICT INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE CENTRE KAMRUP (R) MIRZA D K COLLEGE ROAD MIRZA- 781025 3:COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE ASSAM UDYOG BHAWAN BAMUNIMAIDAM GHY- 21 4:COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES (EARLIER KNOWN AS COMMISSIONER OF TAXES) KAR BHAWAN GUWAHATI 5:ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES(EARLIER KNOWN AS ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF TAXES UNIT-B) KAR BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 6:SUPERINTENDENT OF STATE TAXES (EARLIER KNOWN AS SUPDT OF TAXES (RECOVERY) AND BAKIJAI OFFICER KAR BHAWAN GUWAHATI 7:NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR NEDFI HOUSE G S ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 ASSAM 8:DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (F AND A) NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED NEDFI HOUSE G S ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : DR. A SARAF Advocate for : SC Page No.# 19/35 FINANCE AND TAXATION appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS Linked Case : WP(C)/2416/2019 SHEO SHAKTI COKE INDUSTRIES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGD. UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932 AND HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT 1/1A BIPLAB ANUKUL CHANDRA STREET 5-F ELECTRONIC CENTRE KOLKATA-700072 AND ITS INDUSTRIAL UNIT SITUATED AT VILL- MARANJANA NEAR RANGIA IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP ASSAM AND IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS REP. BY ONE OF ITS PARTNERS SRI AJAY KUMAR JAIN AGED ABOUT 47 YRS VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPTT. OF FINANCE AND TAXATION DISPUR GHY-6 2:GENERAL MANAGER DISTRICT INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE CENTER KAMRUP (R) MIRZA D.K.COLLEGE ROAD MIRZA- 781025 3:COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE ASSAM UDYOG BHAWAN BAMUNIMAIDAM GHY-21 4:COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES (EARLIER KNOWN AS COMMISSIONER OF TAXES) KAR BHAWAN GHY 5:ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES (EARLIER KNOWN AS COMMISSIONER OF TAXES Page No.# 20/35 UNIT B) KAR BHAWAN DISPUR GHY-6 6:SUPERINTENDENT OF STATE TAXES EARLIER KNOWN AS SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES (RECOVERY) AND BAKIJAI OFFICER GHY KAR BHAWAN GHY 7:NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR NEDFI HOUSE G.S.ROAD DISPUR GHY-6 ASSAM 8:DY. GENERAL MANAGER (F AND A) NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. NEDFI HOUSE G.S.ROAD DISPUR GHY-6 ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : DR. A SARAF Advocate for : SC FINANCE AND TAXATION appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date: 28.07.2025 Heard Dr. A. K. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. P. K. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the above noted writ petitions. Also heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Taxation Department, and Mr. A. Kalita, learned Page No.# 21/35 Standing Industries & Commerce Department and Mr. G. Das, learned Standing Counsel, North-Eastern Development Finance Corporation Limited. 2. The petitioners, in the above noted writ petitions have presented a challenge to a communication dated 16.06.2017, issued by the Superintendent of Taxes (Recovery), Guwahati, to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, NEDFi, TISCP, Guwahati, requiring the latter to not disburse any subsidy to the firms named therein, including the petitioners, herein, without prior clearance/concurrence of the Tax authorities. 3. The petitioners, in the present proceedings have contended that in terms of the physical incentives and concessions announced for the North-Eastern Region, for setting up new industrial units as well as for the substantial expansion of the existing industrial units, each of the petitioner proceeded to alter their position by setting up of new industrial units and/or, effecting substantial expansion of their existing units. The petitioners contend that for setting up of a new industrial unit and/or, for expansion of the existing industrial unit, the policy provides various subsidies like interest subsidy, capital investment subsidy, transport subsidy etc. The petitioners, in the above noted writ petitions are involved in the production of Coke. The petitioners project that they, by following the procedure mandated in the policy in place, had submitted their respective claims for being released the subsidies involved before the jurisdictional, General Manager, DICC. 4. The petitioners submit that they have been regularly paying their due taxes as per the assessment made in their respective cases. However, in spite of clearance of tax dues, the Superintendent of Taxes (Recovery), Guwahati, i.e. the respondent no. 6, herein, vide a communication dated 16.06.2017, requested the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, NEDFi, TISCP, Guwahati, not to disburse any subsidies authorized to the firms mentioned in the said communication, in view of the fact that the said firms, including the petitioners herein, had defaulted in making payment of Government dues under various taxation acts. It was requested in the said communication that the NEDFi authorities shall not disburse the subsidy to the defaulting manufacturing units without prior clearance/concurrence of Page No.# 22/35 the Tax authorities of the State. The said communication dated 16.06.2017 was forwarded to the petitioners herein, by the NEDFi authorities. It is contended that the petitioners, on receipt of the said communication dated 16.06.2017, on the same being forwarded to it by the NEDFi authorities, they had individually approached the Tax authorities of the State, requesting for a confirmation with regard to the outstanding dues that has been computed in respect of each of them. The petitioners contend that they having been paying their assessed dues from time to time, the dues receivable from them as set out in the communication dated 16.06.2017, does not reflect the correct position and a modification thereof was mandated to be so undertaken by the State Tax Authorities. 5. It is submitted that the Tax authorities have, however, not responded to the prayers made by the petitioners herein. It is further submitted by the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions that the subsidy amount now being directed to kept on hold, are the amounts due to the petitioner’s firms under the policy formulated by the Government of India and the said amount is not liable to be attached for the purpose of recovery of the defaulted tax amounts. The petitioners further submit that the NEDFi authority, being only the disbursing authority, they are not entitled to withhold any amount of subsidy after the same was so sanctioned by the competent authorities. Accordingly, it is submitted that the communication dated 16.06.2017, issued to the disbursing authority of the subsidy amount, i.e. the NEDFi authorities is clearly illegal. The petitioners having not got any response from the respondent authorities, had proceeded to institute the above noted writ petitions before this Court. 6. At this stage, it is to be noted that this Court while issuing notices in the matter had as an interim measure, kept the impugned communication dated 16.06.2017 in abeyance, however the Superintendent of Taxes (Recovery), Guwahati, was permitted to take steps for recovery of the dues after taking into consideration, the payment of taxes already made by the petitioners. 7. Dr. A. Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset submits that the subsidy due to the petitioner cannot at the hands of the NEDFi authorities be deemed to Page No.# 23/35 be a debt due to the petitioner from it. Accordingly, he submits that the recovery of the said amount under the provisions of Section-44 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (In short, the Act of 2003) would not be permissible and on this count the recovery as contemplated in the communication dated 16.06.2017, in respect of all the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions, would not be maintainable. 8. Dr. Saraf has by referring to the term ‘subsidy’ submits that the same is a grant of money made by a Government in aid of the promoters of any enterprise, work or improvement in which the Government desires to participate or which is considered proper as to be given as aid because, such purpose is likely to be of benefit to the public. Dr. Saraf submits that although the word ‘subsidy’ is not defined, it would involve different forms of financial transfers so made to the industry concerned, on fulfilling the conditions for its grant. The said subsidy being not a debt due to the industry, he submits that the same is not permissible to be so recovered by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 44 of the said Act of 2003. 9. Dr. Saraf has further submitted that on receipt of the impugned communication dated 16.06.2017 from the NEDFi authorities, the petitioners herein, approached the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes i.e. the respondent no. 5 with a request to confirm the details of outstanding taxes due from the petitioners, herein. Dr. Saraf submits that the petitioners had individually approached the authorities with details of payment of tax made by them. The Tax authorities was requested to reconcile the payments of tax made by the petitioners with the outstanding dues so projected in the impugned communication dated 16.06.2017; and thereafter, to rectify the same. Accordingly, the petitioners have requested the authorities to withdraw the impugned communicated dated 16.06.2017. Dr. Saraf has submitted that the amounts as reflected against each of the petitioners in the proceedings, in the impugned communication dated 16.06.2017, has been so done without carrying out a reconciliation with the amounts of tax paid by the petitioners in each of the above noted writ petitions. Accordingly, Dr. Saraf submits that the amount so reflected against each of the petitioners in the impugned communication Page No.# 24/35 dated 16.06.2017 is clearly erroneous and would require interference by this Court. 10. Dr. Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the subsidy due to the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions is so due under various scheme framed in the Government of India and the respondent no. 7 being the disbursing agency, would have no jurisdiction to withhold the said subsidy amounts due to the petitioners, basing on a request made in this connection by the Superintendent of Taxes (Recovery), Guwahati, vide the communication dated 16.06.2017. Accordingly, he submits that the amount of subsidy due to the petitioners being not in a form of debt, the same cannot be permitted to be recovered for satisfaction of the purported tax dues receivable from them. Dr. Saraf, by highlighting the industrial policies coming into force from time to time and the promises held out therein, for grant of various incentives in the form of subsidies for setting up of industries and/or for substantial expansion thereof, the petitioners having acted in terms of such promise held out to them, has submitted that the State authorities now cannot proceed to deprive the petitioners from enjoying the said benefits so conferred upon them by proceeding to recover the amounts due to the petitioner Industries towards satisfaction of purported tax liabilities. 11. In the above premises, both on the ground that the amount of subsidy due to the petitioners not being in the form of a debt, as well as the tax dues receivable from each of the petitioners, as set out in the said communication dated 16.06.2017, being erroneous, Dr. Saraf has submitted that the impugned communication dated 16.06.2017 would mandate an interference from this Court. 12. Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Finance & Taxation Department, by referring to the provisions of Section 44 of the said Act of 2003, has submitted that the same lays down a special mode of recovery. He submits that the Section starts with a non- obstante clause, to the effect that notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract to the contrary, the prescribed authority may, at any time or from time to time require any person from whom any amount of money is due, or may become due, to a dealer or person liable on whom notice has been served under sub-section (3) of Section Page No.# 25/35 29 or, any person who holds or may subsequently hold money for or on account of such dealer or person, liable to pay to the prescribed authority, either forthwith upon the money becoming due or being held or within the time specified in the first mentioned notice but, not before the money becomes due or is held, so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the amount due from any dealer or person liable in respect of the arrear of tax, interest, penalty etc. 13. Mr. Gogoi, submits that the provisions of Section 44, having mandated that recovery for satisfaction of tax dues would be permissible from any person from whom any amount of money is due, postulates that the tax authorities can also proceed to recover the tax dues from the subsidy amounts due to the petitioners, when the same is ready for release to them. 14. Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel has further submitted that the policy, under which the subsidy amount is claimed by the petitioners, in the above noted writ petitions, mandates that before the disbursement of subsidy, NEDFi authorities must ensure that outstanding dues if any, of State and Central Government, Nationalized Banks and Government Financial Institutions are to be recovered. He submits that when the said provision existing in the policy in question, is read with the provisions of Section 44 of the Act of 2003, there is no bar on the part of the respondent authorities in proceeding to issue the impugned communication dated 16.06.2017, for recovery of its dues from the subsidy that would now become due for payment to the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions. 15. Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel, by referring to the communication dated 16.06.2017, has submitted that the NEDFi authorities were only requested not to disburse any subsidy amount to the defaulters mentioned in the list set out in the communication dated 16.06.2017, without prior clearance and concurrence of the Superintendent of Taxes (Recovery), Guwahati. Mr. Gogoi submits that in the event there is any dispute with regard to the amounts spelt out against each of the petitioners in the present writ petitions, in the said communication dated 16.06.2017, the competent authority is empowered to Page No.# 26/35 amend/modify the amounts so claimed as tax dues. Mr. Gogoi has submitted that the tax dues receivable by the Tax authorities, being a public amount, the dues as worked out would be required to be recovered. 16. Mr. Gogoi has further submitted that the pleadings brought on record by the petitioners, would go to show that they had already approached the competent authorities for being authorized the subsidy amounts due to them under the Industrial policy in vogue then. The said amounts of subsidy being a claim made by the petitioner Industries, the same would be deemed to be an existing claim on the part of the petitioners and an existing obligation on the part of the authorities, competent to process such claim of the petitioners. Accordingly, he submits that the amounts due to the petitioners, in the above noted writ petitions as subsidy, cannot be deemed to be a contingent amount and accordingly, there is no bar in requiring the NEDFi authorities to not disburse the said amount of subsidy without prior clearance/concurrence of the tax authorities in the interest of Government revenue. Mr. Gogoi accordingly, in the above premises, submits that the impugned communication dated 16.06.2017 would not mandate any interference. 17. Mr. G. Das, learned counsel appearing for the NEDFi authorities i.e., the respondent no. 7 has submitted that NEDFi has been assigned the role of a Nodal Agency for disbursement of subsidy amount under the Central Government Schemes, such as North- East Industrial Policy, 1977, North-Eastern Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy, 2007; Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971 and Freight Subsidy Scheme, 2013. The NEDFi has been so appointed as the Nodal Agency by the Government of India, for the purpose of disbursement of subsidies in the North-Eastern States since 1998, in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Department of Industrial Promotion and Policy, Government of India (In short, DIPP). 18. Mr. Das, has further submitted that the responsibility of recovery claims, processing them, computing the eligible subsidy amount and finally recommending the same for disbursement rest with the State Government. Once the claim for subsidy is approved by Page No.# 27/35 the District Level Committee or the State Level Committee, as the case may be, the proposal is forwarded to the Government of India. Once the proposal is approved by the DIPP, the funds are released under the scheme concerned to the NEDFi authorities along with the list of units to whom it has to be disbursed. On receipt of the funds and the list of units concerned, the NEDFi authorities take necessary action for disbursement of the fund to the eligible units. However, before releasing the subsidy amounts to the respective units, the NEDFi authorities are mandated to ensure that outstanding dues if any, of the State and Central Governments, Nationalized Banks and Government Financial Institutions are recovered. 19. Mr. Das has further submitted that the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions, have not disclosed details of the pending claims made by them for release of subsidy and/or the scheme under which such claim was made by them. He further submits that the NEDFi authorities had not received any approved proposal for release of subsidy amounts for payment to the petitioners, nor, any money in this connection was sanctioned by the DIPP. In the above premises, Mr. Das submits that the communication dated 16.06.2017, being only a request made to the NEDFi for taking a prior clearance/concurrence from the Superintendent of Taxes (Recovery), Guwahati, before releasing to the petitioner’s firms, their due subsidy amount, no such proposal for release of any subsidy to the petitioner’s firms involved in the above noted writ petitions, being forwarded to the NEDFi authorities, there has arisen no occasion for the NEDFi authorities to approach the Superintendent of Taxes (Recovery), Guwahati, for prior clearance/concurrence for release of any subsidy to the petitioners. 20. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials brought on record. 21. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, gives rise to an issue as to whether the State Tax authority is empowered to make recovery from the subsidy amount claimed by an Industry, set up in terms of the promises held out in the various industrial policies formulated for development of industries. As noticed herein above, the Page No.# 28/35 NEDFi authorities have been appointed as the Nodal Agency for disbursement of subsidy amounts due under various Industrial policies formulated by the Central Government only. The NEDFi authorities are not the disbursing agency of the subsidy amounts under schemes framed by the State Government. 22. The petitioners, in the above noted writ petitions, have made categorical submissions that they had set up their respective industries in terms of the promises held out under various Industrial policies announced by the Government of India as well as by the Government of Assam; and have on setting up of such industries, preferred claims for being disbursed their due subsidy amount, which is pending consideration. 23. At the outset, considering the projections made by the NEDFi authorities, in its pleadings brought on record in the writ petitions, it is to be held that the amounts of subsidy which would be disbursed through it would be the amounts due to an Industry, in terms of the Industrial Policies formulated by the Central Government. The NEDFi authorities are not appointed as the Nodal Agency for disbursement of subsidies due under various Industrial policies formulated by the State Government. Accordingly, the communication dated 16.06.2017, has to be understood to have been so made only in respect of any claim for subsidy made by any of the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions, under the various Industrial policies formulated by the Central Government from time to time. 24. In the event, any of the petitioners involved in the above noted writ petitions have set up its industries, under the Industrial policies formulated by the State Government concerned, the NEDFi authorities, not being appointed as a disbursal agency for such schemes formulated by the State Government, the recovery so sought to be made of subsidy amounts, in respect of subsidies claimed by the petitioners concerned, under the Industrial policy formulated by the State Government would not be so liable to be made from the NEDFi authorities. Accordingly, the communication dated 16.06.2017, insofar as, it relates to recovery of claim of subsidy amounts made by the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions, under the Industrial policies formulated by the State Government Page No.# 29/35 concerned, would have got no application. 25. This Court now proceeds to consider the challenge to the communication dated 16.06.2017, by deeming it to be in relation to a claim made by the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions, in respect of a claim for subsidy under the Industrial policies coming into force for the North-Eastern region and formulated by the Central Government. The communication dated 16.06.2017, being relevant, is extracted herein below: - “Dated Guwahati, the 16th June, 2017 To, The Chairman cum Managing Director, NEDFI Dispur, Guwahati-06 Sub: Restriction in disbursing any subsidy amount to the defaulter manufacturing units. Ref: This office letter no. 197-99 dt 10/07/2014 200-202 dt 10-07/2014 Sir, With reference to the subject cited above, I have the honour to state that the following manufacturing units have defaulted in making payment of Govt. dues under various Taxation Acts as shown below— Sl.no . Name of Industry Vat / AGST CST Entry Tax Total *0040 *0040 *0042 1 M/s Jai Coke Industries 31,944,323 33,138,355 65,082,678 2 M/s Shree Balaji Coke Industries 19,375 31,744,665 35,558,950 67,322,990 3 M/s Shiva Coke Industries 41,361,341 34,484,808 75,846,149 4 M/s Sheo Shakti Coke Industries 45,550,524 35,758,549 81,309,073 5 M/s S. K. J. Coke Industries 10,593,235 32,839,553 12,925,303 56,358,091 6 M/s Raj Coke Industries 41,946,726 37,691,442 79,638,168 7 M/s Jupiter Coke Industries 593,295 0 16,526,532 17,119,827 Page No.# 30/35 8 M/s Sethi Coke Industries 49,071,914 48,012,681 97,084,595 9 M/s Jagati Coke Industries 72,223,694 24,921,819 97,415,513 10 M/s Ganesh Met Coke Industries 15,795 36,401,002 32,870,694 69,287,491 11 M/s Parasnath Coke Industries 571,476 60,179,820 28,985,323 89,736,619 12 M/s Kamrup Coke Industries 5,183,204 25,296,136 30,479,340 13 M/s Brahmaputra Iron and Steel Steel Co. 254,562,005 1,617,246 0 256,179,251 14 M/s Brahmaputra TMT Bars (P) Ltd 38,132,763 0 0 38,132,763 15 M/s Brahmaputra Galvo Chem Pvt. Ltd. 32,046,238 0 0 32,046,238 16 M/s Jaiswal Steel Rolling mill 61,482,220 0 0 61,482,220 17 M/s Fabric Plus (P) Ltd 13,747,961 0 0 13,747,961 18 M/s Narayani Minerals 4,224,887 0 0 4,224,887 19 M/s JSB Cement LLP 1110778462 0 11,264,678 122,043,140 20 M/s NECEM Cement Ltd 151,998,255 0 0 151,998,255 21 M/s NECEM Cement Ltd 68,968,897 0 0 68,968,897 747,734,864 450,064,012 377,435,270 157,523,4146 These manufacturing units avail various types of subsidies like capital investment subsidy, transport subsidy etc., through the NEDFI. Since the above named defaulters failed to pay Govt. dues, therefore, I request you to disburse any subsidy to the said defaulter without prior clearance/concurrence of the undersigned in the interest of Govt. revenue. Yours faithfully, (S.P Medhi) Superintendent of Taxes (Recovery), Guwahati. 26. A perusal of the communication dated 16.06.2017, would bring to the forefront that the Superintendent of Taxes (Recovery), Guwahati, had projected therein, that the industries whose names has been set out, including the petitioners herein, had defaulted Page No.# 31/35 in payment of taxes under various Taxation Laws in vogue, as of then. The taxes due to the industries whose names has been set out in the said communication, was projected to be so due under the VAT/AGST/CST and Entry Tax. The defaulted amounts, in respect of each of the petitioners is also set out in the said communication dated 16.06.2017. The mode of recovery of defaulted tax amount is provided for, under the provisions of the said Act of 2003. Section 44 of the said Act of 2003, which lays down a special mode for such recovery being relevant, is extracted herein below: - “44. Special mode of recovery.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract to the contrary, the Prescribed Authority may, at any time or from time to time, by notice in writing, a copy of which shall be forwarded to the dealer at this last known address, require-- (a) any person from whom any amount of money is due or may become due, to a dealer or person liable, on whom notice has been served under sub-section (3) of Section 29; or, (b) any person who holds or may subsequently hold money for or on account of such dealer or person liable, to pay to the Prescribed Authority, either forthwith upon the money becoming due or being held within the time specified in the first mentioned notice (but not before the money becomes due or is held as aforesaid), so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the amount due from the dealer or person liable in respect of the arrears of tax, interest, penalty or any other sum due under or less than that amount. 27. A perusal of the provisions of Section 44 of the Act of 2003 would go to reveal that it starts with a non-obstante clause. It mandates that notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract to the contrary, the Prescribed Authority may, at any time or from time to time, by notice in writing, a copy of which shall be forwarded to the dealer at this last known address, require to any person from whom any amount of money is due or may become due, to a dealer or person liable, on whom notice has been served under sub- section (3) of Section 29; or, any person who holds or may subsequently hold money for Page No.# 32/35 or on account of such dealer or person, liable to pay to the Prescribed Authority, either forthwith upon the money becoming due or being held within the time specified in the first mentioned notice (but not before the money becomes due or is held as aforesaid), so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the amount due from the dealer or person liable in respect of the arrears of tax, interest, penalty etc. 28. The subsidy amounts claimed by the petitioners is required to be processed in the manner laid down in the Industrial policies concerned and the notifications issued in this direction from time to time by the Central Government. Thereafter, on the amounts involved being approved, after the same is processed by the competent authorities of the State Government, by the DIPP and amounts released, the NEDFi authorities would be required to disburse the same to the concerned authority. Accordingly, on the amounts being approved by the Committees concerned and its subsequent approval by the DIPP and release of money, the amounts of subsidy due to an industry would be held as having become due to it. 29. In the event, the amount of subsidy after being processed, becomes due for payment to an Industry concerned through the NEDFi authorities, and it being also mandated under the industrial policies as well as the notifications issued by the Central Government from time to time, that such disbursal of subsidy by NEDFi authorities must be so made after the outstanding dues, if any, of State and Central Government, Nationalized Banks and Government Financial Institutions are recovered, the subsidy amount would also come within the ambit of the provisions of Section 44 of the Act of 2003. 30. The stipulations as made for recovery for such dues by the NEDFi authorities before the release of the subsidy amount to the Industry concerned, also goes to show that the Government dues including tax dues receivable from a dealer, is permissible to be recovered from the due subsidy amount at the time when the same is ready for release to the Industry concerned, after being approved by the competent authority of the Central Government. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the request made by Page No.# 33/35 the Superintendent of Taxes (Recovery), Guwahati, to the NEDFi authorities, vide the communication dated 16.06.2017, for not disbursing the subsidy amount to any of the default industries whose names is set out in the said communication, without prior clearance/concurrence of it, cannot be held to have been so made without jurisdiction. The said power flows from the provisions of Section 44 of the said Act of 2003. 31. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to hold that given the language in which Section 44 is so couched, the term “any person from whom any amount of money is due or may become due to a dealer or person and/or any person who holds or may subsequently hold for or, on account of such dealer or person liable, would also bring within its fold, the subsidy amount due to an industry under the Industrial policies formulated by the Central Government, disbursement of which is through the NEDFi authorities, however, the said position would come to be in effect, only after the claim made by the Industry concerned is cleared by the Committees of the State Government and is finally approved for payment by the DIPP authorities. 32. Accordingly, the request made by the Superintendent of Taxes (Recovery), Guwahati, vide communication dated 16.06.2017, requiring the NEDFi authorities not to disburse any subsidy to the defaulting firms, whose names are highlighted therein without prior clearance/concurrence is not found to be erroneous and/or to have been made without jurisdiction by the Superintendent of Taxes (Recovery), Guwahati. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the notification dated 16.06.2017 would not mandate interference from this Court. 33. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court is also required to consider the contentions made by the petitioners in the writ petitions as well as by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, during the hearing of the matters, that the amounts as set out against each of the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions, in the communication dated 16.06.2017 is fictitious; inasmuch as, the said amount of default was so arrived at without first reconciling the same with the payment of tax amounts made by the petitioners over the period of time. Page No.# 34/35 34. The contentions made by the petitioners, in this connection, in their writ petitions, including the communications brought on record in support of such request being made, having not been disputed by the Taxation Authorities, by way of filing an affidavit, this Court is left with no other alternative but to hold that the amount of liability computed in respect of each of the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions, in the communication dated 16.06.2017 has been so done without considering the claim of the petitioners herein, of having made payments of the amounts due from time to time. Accordingly, while upholding the power of the tax authorities, to require recovery to be effected towards the tax dues of defaulting industries, from the amount of subsidy receivable by such industries through the NEDFi authorities, under the various Industrial policies formulated by the Central Government from time to time, this Court holds that such recovery would be permissible only for the actual dues receivable from the industry concerned. 35. The amount as set out in respect of each of the petitioners in the communication dated 16.06.2017, having been demonstrated by the petitioners to be erroneous and the same being not disputed by the tax authorities, this Court proceeds to set aside the communication dated 16.06.2017, insofar as it concerns the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions. 36. The respondent authorities are now required to issue a notice to the petitioners herein, with regard to the tax dues receivable from each of the petitioner and thereafter, to determine, after considering the response of the petitioner, the actual tax dues receivable from each of the petitioners and thereafter, in the event, there exists admitted tax dues receivable from all or any of the petitioners involved in the above noted writ petitions, to initiate appropriate measures for recovery of the same, also by taking recourse to the procedure as set out in Section 44 of the said Act of 2003, by applying the conclusions drawn by this Court, herein above. 37. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petitions stands disposed of. Page No.# 35/35 JUDGE Comparing Assistant