ORDER
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. Heard Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Delip Jerath,
learned counsel for the respondent-Board.
2. The only question that falls for consideration is as to whether petitioner Industrial
Unit is entitled to the benefits of Industrial Policy 1995 in the matter of exemption from
payment of AMG Charges for a period of five years.
3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass :
The petitioner setup an industry of cement manufacturing Unit. It applied to
the Department of Industries for grant of Industrial License under the Small Scale
Industries (SSI Sector). Petitioner also applied for electric connection of 100 KVA and
the Electrical Executive Engineer, Giridih accorded sanction vide letter-dated 14.1.2000
for the supply of electricity. After completed all the requirements and formalities including execution of agreement electric connection was energized on 6.12.2000. Petitioner
said to have started commercial production with effect from 18.1.2000. In June 2001,
petitioner was served with a bill of AMG charges for the period 2000-01. Petitioner
challenged those bills by filing writ petition being WPC No. 2946 of 2001, which was
disposed of on 27.1.2003 by this Court with a direction to the petitioner to file
representation before respondent No. 2, General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer,
Hazaribagh stating inter alia that under Clause 9.6 of 1995 Industrial Policy, petitioner
Unit is entitled to exemption from payment of AMG Charges for five years. The General
Manager-cum-Chief Engineer by order dated 21.3.2005 disposed of the representation
and held that petitioner is not entitled to exemption from payment of AMG Charges on
the ground that in terms of provisions laid down in the Board’s Letter No. 652 dated
11.10.1996 the benefit was available only to those Units which came into production in
between 1.4.1993 to 31.8.2000. The General Manager also held that electric connection
was given in the Unit only on 6.12.2000 and as per the certificate issued by the General
Manager, petitioner-Unit came in production only on 18.1.2001. Petitioner also
challenged the order dated 21.3.2005 passed by General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer
rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of exemption from payment of AMG
Charges.
4. The erstwhile State of Bihar came out with an Industrial Policy in the year 1995
known as 1995 Industrial Policy. By the said Industrial Policy the State of Bihar desired
to give impetus to the Industrial Units within certain specified time period by issuing
notification. By Clause 9.6 of the Industrial Policy the Government desired to give
exemption besides other from payment of AMG Charges for new industrial Unites having
connected load of 500 KVA. The State of Bihar vide notification dated 3.9.1996 issued
under Section 78-A of the Electric (Supply) Act decided to exempt from levy of
Minimum Guarantee Charges for a period of five years to those industrial unit which
came into production between 1.9.1995 to 31.8.2000.
5. The stand of the respondent-Jharkhand State Electricity Board is that as per the
letter issued by the Bihar State Electricity Board being letter No. 652 dated 11.10.1996
remission/exemption was allowed only to those Industrial Unit which came into
production from 1.4.1993 to 31.8.2000. The relevant portion of letter dated 11.10.1996
reads as under :
“Dinank 1.4.1993 se 31.8.2000 ke bich utpadan me aanewali avm
parivasit vistaar/diversification karne walon odyogik upbhokta Jinka connected vidyut
load 500 (five hundered) KVA tak ho ko vidyut sambandh tithi se paanch varshon tak ke
liye nimntam guarantee se chhut dya jayega.”
“It transpires from the above that production of those Industrial unit which have come
in force in between the period from 1.4.1993 to 31.8.2000 and whose connected load are
upto 500 KVA will only be entitled to get remission/exemption in AMG charges for the
five years from the date of connection.”
6. It is contended by the respondents that this fact was duly communicated to the
petitioner as back as in 2001 vide letter of the Electrical Superintending Engineer dated
8.8.2001.
7. The erstwhile State of Bihar in order to create environment for optimal utilization
of State’s agro climatic, mineral and human resources and to accelerate the industrial
growth time to time came with an industrial policy giving exemption to the newly
established industrial Units subject to certain terms and condition also by issuing
notification. One of those industrial policies of the Government is of 1995 Policy. Those
benefits like exemption from payment of Sales Tax, AMG Charges, rebate for non-supply
of power to industrial undertakings decided to be given for a limited period by issuing
notification through the concerned department of the Government. The Government is
therefore entitled to grant exemption to the industry having regard to Industry Police of
the Government. The Government is also free to modify its Industrial Policy and grant,
withdrawal or modify fiscal benefits from time to time by issuing notification. It is,
therefore, clear that merely because of issuance of Industrial Policy such benefits cannot
be claimed as a matter of right by the Industrial Unit unless the Government grant
benefits in accordance with the Industrial Policy by issuing notification. In this con-
nection reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Arvind Industries and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., .
8. In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa and Anr. v. Jagannath Cotton
Company and Anr., also the Supreme Court considered the question of
benefit claiming under Orissa Industrial Policy Resolution 1986 and 1989. Their
Lordships observed :
“Apart from the above consideration, we must also see what are the
provisions, if any, in the Orissa Sales Tax Act providing exemption from sales tax in the
case of new industries and whether they are consistent with the provisions of IPR or are
they different. The High Court seems to have proceeded on the assumption that the IPR
by itself is enough to provide the exemption from the sales tax. But where the provisions
of the Sales Tax Act are also amended providing for exemption, then the Court has to see
whether they are the same as the IPR or are then different and if different, what is the
effect of such difference. It is therefore, necessary to ascertain the relevant provisions in
the Sales Tax Act, rules and notifications, if any, issued thereunder before expressing a
final opinion in the matter.
9. In the instant case, as noticed above, by the Industrial Policy, 1995 issued by the
State of Bihar, the Government decided to give some benefits to the Industrial Units for a
period of five years. Admittedly, the Bihar State Electricity Board vide Circular dated
8.5.2001 clarified that remission/exemption in AMG Charges which was granted to those
Industrial Units whose production commenced in between 1.4.1993 to 31.8.2000 shall
not continue after 31.8.2000. Even before that Bihar State Electricity Board vide letter
No. 652 dated 11.10.1996 had clearly notified that only those Industrial Units which
came into production in between 1.4.1993 to 31.8.2000 having connected load of 500
KVA will be entitled to get exemption in AMG Charges for a period of five years from
the date of connection. Admittedly, petitioner Unit was supplied electric connection only
on 6.12.2000 and as per the petitioner’s own case the production started from 18.1.2001.
It is, therefore, clear that petitioner-Unit did not start production before 31.8.2000. In my
opinion, therefore, petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right the benefit of exemption
from payment of AMG Charges merely because the Unit was established in 2000.
10. Taking into consideration the entire facts of the case and the notification referred
to herein above and also having regard to the fact that the Unit came into production only
from 18.1.2001, petitioner is not entitled to any benefit under the Industrial Policy,
1995.
11. For, the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this writ application, which is
accordingly dismissed.