Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010269242024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6868/2024 GATTANI INDUSTRIES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM DULY REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932 AND HAVING ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS SITUATED AT MARIANI ROAD, CHINNAMARA, IN THE DISTRICT OF JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785008 AND REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNER, SHRI LILADHAR GATTANI. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRIAL POLICY AND PROMOTION, UDYOG BHAWAN, NEW DELHI- 110107. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 3:THE COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM UDYOG BHAWAN BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI-781021 4:THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF TAXES ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 5:THE JOINT SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM INDUSTRIES COMMERCE AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISE DEPARTMENT Page No.# 2/4 DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 6:THE GENERAL MANAGER DISTRICT INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE CENTRE BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI-21 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. ASHOK SARAF, B SARMA,MR P K BORA,MR S J SAIKIA,MR. N N DUTTA,MR P BARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,SC, TAXES BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 08.01.2025 Heard Mr. P. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Kalita, learned counsel for the Industries and Commerce Department for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 5. Also heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his claim for grant of subsidy, in terms of the North East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy (NEIIPP), 2007 and the Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, 2007 (CCISS, 2007). 3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner had made substantial expansion in terms of Clause (iv) of the NEIIPP, 2007 and Clause 4(d) of the Notification dated 27.07.2007, in relation to the Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, 2007. He submits that the petitioner had made a claim for grant of subsidy in terms of the above NEIIPP and CCISS, which was forwarded to the concerned authorities by the General Manager, District Industries & Page No.# 3/4 Commerce Centre, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. A report on the claim for subsidy made by the petitioner was made by a committee constituted by the Government of Assam, Industries & Commerce Department, which stated that the Field Visit Team had recommended that the petitioner should be given subsidy @30% of the investment under the CCISS, 2007 and NEIIPP, 2007. Though the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of subsidy, the State Level Committee meeting minutes dated 07.01.2019 rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of subsidy on the ground that the increasing production, turnover etc, after expansion did not commensurate with the increasing investment. 4. Mr. P. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case is a covered case in terms of the order dated 04.11.2024 passed in WP(C) 8631/2018 “PDP Steels Limited vs. Union of India and three others”. 5. Mr. A. Kalita, learned counsel for the Industries and Commerce Department and Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submit that the present case is a covered case, in terms of the order dated 04.11.2024 passed in WP(C) 8631/2018 and as such, the same can be disposed of in the same line as WP(C) 8631/2018. 6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 7. The operative portion of the order dated 04.11.2024 passed in WP(C) 8631/2018 is at para 9, which is as follows:- “9. On considering the submissions of the counsels for the parties and keeping in view the disposal of WP(C) 443/2019 (M/s Ozone Ayurvedics Vs. the State of Assam and 6 ors.) and WP(C) 435/2019 (Ozone Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. the State of Assam and 6 Page No.# 4/4 Ors.), this Court is also of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of in the same manner. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner should be placed before the next State Level Committee meeting to be considered in the light of the instructions issued vide letter dated 17.06.2022 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industries. Further, the State Level Committee shall have to consider the case of the petitioner in terms the definition of “substantial expansion” provided in the NEIIPP, 2007 and CCISS, 2007.” 8. In view of the fact that the present case is a covered case, the present writ petition is also disposed of in line with para 9 of the order dated 04.11.2024 passed in WP(C) 8631/2018. Consequently, the State Level Committee meeting minutes dated 07.01.2019, insofar it relates to the petitioner, is set aside. 9. The claim of the petitioner should be placed before the next State Level Committee meeting for reconsideration. 10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant