Karnataka High Court
M/S Venkateshwara Power Project(Sugar ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 December, 2021
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO.66492/2011 (GM RES)
C/w. W.P.NO.63935/2010 (T- KST)
W.P.NO.67358/2011 (GM RES)
IN WP.NO.66492/2011
BETWEEN:
SHREE RENUKA SUGARS LIMITED,
(A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT, 1956)
ITS OFFICE AT HAVLOCK ROAD,
CAMP, BELGAUM,
REP. BY ITS LEGAL OFFICER,
(CORPORATE AFFAIRS),
SHRI. SANJEEV S/O PRALHAD KULKARNI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
FINANCE DEPT.,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT. OF
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
:2:
3. THE COMMISSIONER FOR
CANE DEVELOPMENT AND
DIRECTOR OF SUGARS IN KARNATAKA,
CHOUGALE HOUSE, CRESCENT ROAD,
BANGALORE.
..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAPRABHU S.HIREMATH, AGA FOR RESPONDENT
NOS.1 TO 3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER
DTD.26.11.2010 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2
COMMUNICATED ON 30.06.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ISSUE
WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO RELEASE
THE SUM OF RS.7,79,48,350/- FORTHWITH TO THE PETITIONER-
COMPANY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
DTD.12.03.2008 VIDE ANNEXURE-B.
IN WP.NO.63935/2010
BETWEEN
M/S. VENKATESHWARA POWER PROJECT (SUGAR FACTORY) LTD.,
POST BEDKIHAL, TAL. CHIKKODI,
DIST. BELGAUM,
BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT,
1ST FLOOR. VIKAS SOUDHA. BANGALORE.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
FINANCE DEPARTMENT,
GOVT. OF KARNATAKA.
VIDHANA SOUDA. BANGALORE.
:3:
3. THE COMMISSIONER,
COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT,
GANDHINAGAR. BANGALORE -560 009.
4. THE COMMISSIONER FOR
CANE DEVELOPMENT AND DIRECTOR OF SUGAR,
C.B.A.B. COMPLEX, 5TH FLOOR.
F. BLOCK, CAUVERY BHAVAN,
K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
(RECOVERY-1) SUMOULYA SOUDHA,
5TH FLOOR, CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM.
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAPRABHUA S.HIREMATH, AGA FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARAI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR
DIRECTION BY QUASHING THE NOTIFICATION UNDER
GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.FD 16 CSA 2008, DATED 24/03/2010
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AS PER ANNEXURE-P IN SO FAR
AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND QUASH THE DEMAND
NOTICE (REVISED) DATED 16/04/2010 IN NO.KST/SCPT AND
RC/B/23/2010-11 AS PER ANNEXURE-Q AND NOTICE
DATED:26/05/2010 IN NO.DCCT (REC)-1 BGM:SEC 14/10-11/B-47
AND NO. DCCT (REC)-1 BGM:SEC 14/10-11/B-48 AS PER
ANNEXURES-S AND T ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.5 HEREIN AND
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 TO ISSUE NOTIFICATION
UNDER SECTION 8(A) OF THE KARNATAKA SALES TAX ACT, 1957
REGARDING EXEMPTION OF TAX AND CESS PAYABLE ON THE
PURCHASE OF SUGARCANE BY THE PETITIONER SUGAR
INDUSTRIES AS ISSUED ON THE EARLIER OCCASION AS PER
ANNEXURE-H AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 TO
RELEASE THE AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE PETITIONER AS PER THE
ORDER DATED:09/02/2009 IN NO.DSK/STT/13-6/2007-2008 AS
PER ANNEXURE-L HEREIN.
:4:
IN W.P.NO.67358/2011
BETWEEN
M/S. ATHANI FARMERS SUGAR FACTORY LTD.,
AT: VISHNUNNA NAGAR, PO: NAVALIHAL,
TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM,
BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SHRI SHRIMANTH BALASAHEB PATIL.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT,
1ST FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE.
2. THE PRL. SECRETARY,
FINANCE DEPARTMENT,
GOVT. OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE.
3. THE COMMISSIONER FOR CANE DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR OF SUGAR, C.B.A.B. COMPLEX,
5TH FLOOR, F-BLOCK, CAUVERY BHAVAN,
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE .
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BELGAUM DISTRICT, BELGAUM.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAPRABHU S.HIREMATH, AGA FOR RESPONDENT
NOS.1 TO 4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT
NO.1 TO 4 HEREIN TO RELEASE THE BALANCE RELIEF'S AND
CONCESSIONS TO THE PETITIONER-SUGAR FACTORY AS PER THE
PROCEEDINGS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
:5:
DATED:12/03/2008 AS PER ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1 AND FURTHER AS PER THE ORDER DATED
31/03/2008 AS PER ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.3 HEREIN AND ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS
OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION,
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN TO PASS NECESSARY
SANCTION ORDER OF EXPORT SUBSIDY AS PER THE
RECOMMENDATION DATED 21/07/2009 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 HEREIN, AS PER ANNEXURE-H HEREIN, BY
DIRECTING TO RELEASE THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF
RS.4,58,07,300/-, WITH INTEREST TO THE PETITIONER SUGAR
FACTORY ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY
OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION,
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN, TO PASS NECESSARY
SANCTION ORDER OF SUBSIDIES TO THE REMAINING BALANCE
OF RS.1,37,752/- IN RESPECT OF INCENTIVES OF RS.100/- PMT
TO THE PETITIONER SUGAR FACTORY AS PER ANNEXURE-H.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The State Government formulated a scheme, whereby, it decided to grant export incentives of Rs.100/- per quintal for exporting sugarcane. This incentive was however subject to a total outer limit of Rs.10 crores.
2. The petitioners claiming to have exported sugarcane sought to claim this incentive and submitted a representation.
:6:
3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.66492/2011 contends that as a matter of fact, export incentive of Rs.2.27 crores was also given to it.
4. It is contended that subsequently, the State Government has expressed its inability to grant this export incentive on the ground that the outer limit of Rs.10 crores prescribed in its Government order had been reached. In otherwords, the Government stated that the outer limit that it had prescribed had been reached and therefore, it was unable to extend the incentive.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, after arguing for sometime, ultimately, submitted that they may be permitted to submit a detailed representation requesting the Government to enhance the outer limit of Rs.10 crores and thereby ensuring that they would also get the benefit of the export incentive. It is their case that on the assumption that they would get the benefit of the export incentive they had exported sugar by procuring a larger quantity of sugarcane and had exported sugar produced thereon. It is stated that if their incentive is refused, they would be severely prejudiced. :7:
6. In my view, having regard to the grievance of the petitioners, it would be just and necessary to permit them to submit a detailed representation requesting the State Government to enhance the outer limit of Rs.10 crores and grant them the export incentive. If such a representative is made, respondents shall consider the same taking into consideration all relevant factors and pass appropriate orders.
7. Accordingly writ petitions are disposed off.
8. Any representation pending before the State Government shall also be considered along with fresh representations, if any, submitted by the petitioners.
9. It is made clear that the rejection of the petitioners' claim for export incentives on the ground that outer limit of Rs.10 crores had been reached shall not be a ground taken by the Government for rejecting any representation submitted by the petitioners.
10. Insofar as Writ Petition No.63935/2010 is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prayers A, B and C would not survive for consideration and :8: therefore, the writ petition insofar as prayers A, B and C are concerned are dismissed as having become unnecessary.
Sd/-
JUDGE CKK