Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. It is being submitted that the amount is required by the petitioner for various purposes. The petitioner is entitled to receive the amount of production subsidy under notifcation dated 02-12-2015 in accordance with the MIEQ pursuant communication dated 18-09-2015. It is stated that the sugar manufactured and exported for which subsidy is claimed, had been manufactured well before 19-05-2016 and had been dispatched in the month of April-2016 to the export agency and subsequently, the exporter has also exported/shipped the goods out of country.

7. Petitioner claims that while it has dispatched and exported 36980 quintal sugar, it was entitled to subsidy in accordance with provisions of scheme under notifcation dated 02-12-2015. The petitioner, thus, seeks mandamus to the respondents to release amount of subsidy to petitioner implementing the notifcations.

5 WP - 8313-2017

8. In response to the writ petition, the respondents referred to the background under which order/communication dated 18-09-2015 had been issued referring to that no export subsidy or incentive had been ofered to the petitioner which was expected to be exported at prevailing international price. The respondents also refer to notifcation dated 02-12-2015 providing production subsidy at the rate of Rs.4.50 per quintal during crushing season 2015-16 and to that it was to be used for payment of dues of sugarcane farmers. It is referred to that depending on market conditions, the scheme was amenable for amendment or withdrawal. Thus, invoking the authority under the notifcation, production subsidy scheme had been withdrawn under notifcation dated 19-05-2016.

9. In reply, it has been submitted that factories which could not achieve the targeted performance in respect of exports till the tenancy of scheme upto 19-05-2016 were not considered eligible to avail of the beneft of scheme. The production subsidy was provided to all the sugar mills which have exported at least 40% of MIEQ till the date of tenancy of scheme. While the petitioner had not exported even 40% of their target by 19-05-2016, it had not been found eligible for production subsidy. It has been referred to in the reply, that as per records available with the respondents, the factory though had delivered 3698 metric tonnes of sugar from its premises but only 1696 metric tonnes of sugar could be exported by the stipulated date i.e. 19-05-2016 which does not meet with the requirement of 40% of its MIEQ which is the minimum quantity required to be exported by a mill for being eligible to avail of beneft of the scheme under notifcation dated 12-09-2016.