Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010044382025 2025:GAU-AS:2565 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1184/2025 M/S PIONEER TIMBER SEASONERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE PARTHERSHIP ACT 1932 AND HAVING ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS SITUATED AT DIGBOI ROAD, MAKUM JUNCTION, DISTRICT- TINSUKIA, ASSAM. PIN-786170 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER/AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, SRI DHANANJAY SING, AGE-59 YEARS SON OF SRI OKIL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL 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. Page No.# 2/4 5:THE JOINT SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM INDUSTRIES COMMERCE AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 6:THE GENERAL MANAGER DISTRICT INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE CENTRE TINSUKIA ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. M L GOPE, MS. N HAWELIA Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR ORDER Date : 11.03.2025 Heard Ms. M. L. Gope, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Kalita, learned Standing Counsel, Industries and Commerce Department, for the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5 & 6. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Minutes of the meeting dated 30.01.2019 of the State Level Committee, whereby, the claim of the petitioner’s firm under the 30% Central Capital Investment Subsidy (CCIS) Scheme, 2007 as per the provisions of the North East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy (NEIIPP), 2007 for the modernization process undertaken in its existing unit was rejected. 3. It is the case of the petitioner’s firm that they have under taken the modernization process in its existing Industrial unit by introducing the latest technology and therefore, the claim of the petitioner for subsidy under the Page No.# 3/4 CCISS, 2007 could not have been rejected on the ground that there is no increase in VAT for 1 (one) year after expansion compared to 1 (one) year prior to expansion by the SLC in its meeting held on 30.01.2019. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner’s firm submits that after coming to know about the rejection, the petitioner’s firm by a Communication dated 11.10.2019 addressed to the respondent No. 3 clarified that after the introduction of GST from the month of July, 2017, the petitioner’s firm had also paid GST for the period from July, 2017 to March, 2018, however, the same was inadvertently not included in the application thereby the Financial Assessment of the petitioner’s firm post expansion growth was inaccurately reflected leading to the adverse observations. The said Communication dated 11.10.2019 was also followed up by another Communication dated 06.03.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after the rejection of the case of the petitioner’s firm, the petitioner’s firm has re-submitted the rectified claim proposal after making the corrections wherever necessary. Thereafter, the General Manager (In-Charge), District Industries and Commerce Centre, Tinsukia by forwarding letter dated 02.01.2025 addressed to the Commissioner of Industries and Commerce, Assam has forwarded the 30% CCISS claim in respect of the petitioner’s firm. 5. Mr. A. Kalita, learned Standing Counsel, Industries and Commerce Department, submits that as the petitioner has already submitted the rectified claim application before the General Manager, District Industries and Commerce Centre, Tinsukia, which was also forwarded to the Commissioner of Industries and Commerce Department, Assam on 02.01.2025, the matter may be closed by directing the concerned State Level Committee to have a re-look into the matter. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the State Level Committee to have a re-consideration of the case of the petitioner’s firm in view Page No.# 4/4 of the submission of the rectified claim proposal made by the petitioner’s firm. Let such consideration be done in the next immediate setting of the State Level Committee. 7. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant