Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 136 (MEG)

Meghalaya Feed Products v. Union of India

2019-05-03

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The scheme called the "Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971" has been formulated and notified for grant of subsidy on the transport of raw materials and finished goods to and from the selected areas with a view to promote growth of industries. The State of Meghalaya falls within the selected area "A" of the scheme. In the said area petitioner M/S Meghalaya Feed Products has an industrial unit. Vide letter dated 12.05.2009 issued by the respondent Director of Industries to the petitioner, it has been conveyed that the subsidies had been sanctioned against the claim of the petitioner by the State Level Committee in its 58th meeting held on 07.05.2009 as such, has been advised to contact the North Eastern Development Finance, Guwahati for necessary disbursement. The types of subsidy, period and amount sanctioned are as under: "Sl. No. Types of Subsidy Period Amount Sanctioned (Rs.) 1. Central Interest Subsidy 01.09.05 to 31.03.09 24,56,615.00 2. Central Transport Subsidy 01.04.08 to 30.06.08 68,12,316.00 - do - 01.07.08 to 30.09.08 66,43,080.00 - do - 01.10.08 to 31.12.08 94,74,928.00 - do - 01.01.09 to 31.03.09 1,38,69,552.00 Total 3,92,56,491.00" 2. So far as the subsidy for the periods of 01.09.2005 to 31.03.2009, 01.04.2008 to 30.06.2008 and 01.07.2008 to 30.09.2008 are concerned same have been disbursed in favour of the petitioner whereas, regarding the Central Transport Subsidy for the periods of 01.10.2008 to 31.12.2008 and 01.01.2009 to 31.03.2009, amounting to Rs. 2,33,44,480/- has not been disbursed same has been conveyed to the respondent No. 5 by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of India vide letter dated 02.09.2014 because the expenditure incurred by cash on transportation of raw materials/finished goods is not permissible as per the existing policy. 3. It appears that for ensuring that the object for grant of subsidy is not misused, the checklists for scrutiny of claims under the Transport Subsidy Scheme has been formulated as Annexures "A" and "B" to the letter dated 20.11.2009 issued from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion which inter alia provides that all claims arising from transportation of raw materials and finished goods prior to 10.09.2009 will be examined/re-audited as per checklist "A" of 44 points. Point No. 35 which is relevant provides as under, Bank statement for payment made to Transporters during the period (payment only by cheque). 4. Point No. 35 which is relevant provides as under, Bank statement for payment made to Transporters during the period (payment only by cheque). 4. Precisely, the point for consideration is as to whether Point No. 35 for the periods of 01.10.2008 to 31.12.2008 and 01.01.2009 to 31.03.2009 will apply viz-a-viz payment to Transporters by cheque, the answer has to be no. The notification has been issued on 20.11.2009, the periods of claim of the petitioner is 01.10.2008 to 31.12.2008 and 01.01.2009 to 31.03.2009, during that period he had no idea that he has to satisfy the condition of making the payment of the transportation by cheque, as usual he has claim to have made the payment by cash, same he had done in case of the other three claims for the periods of 01.09.2005 to 31.03.2009, 01.04.2008 to 30.06.2008 and 01.07.2008 to 30.09.2008, the amount of those claims has been disbursed. To abruptly say that the petitioner did not make the payment by cheque for the periods when the notification dated 20.11.2009 was not in place shall be illogical even though in the notification the condition has been incorporated that all claims arising for transportation of raw materials and finished goods prior to 10.09.2009 will be examined/pre-audited as per checklist "A" of 44 points. Point 35 providing for payment by cheque is introduced in the month of November 2009, petitioner claim to have made the payment by cash during the relevant quarter on 31.03.2009, as such the condition, if applied retrospective will totally be illogical. 5. Now, the question is as to whether the claim of the petitioner is genuine or not, same position is clarified by respondent No. 5 in the affidavit-in-opposition by annexing pre-audit report in respect of the Transport Subsidy Scheme sent by the Under Secretary to the Government of India to the Chairman cum Managing Director, North East Development Finance Corporation Ltd. The pre-audit team during its visit from 19.01.2012 to 28.01.2012 of 64th SLC dated 30.05.2011 had at paragraphs 67 to 68 dealt with the claim of the petitioner for the aforesaid periods. In the remarks column it is recorded as under: "CENTRAL TRANSPORT SUBSIDY CLAIMS OF MEGHALAYA PRE-AUDITED BY PRE AUDIT TEAM during its visit from 19-01-2012 to 28-01-2012 OF 64TH SLC Dated 30-5-2011 Sl. In the remarks column it is recorded as under: "CENTRAL TRANSPORT SUBSIDY CLAIMS OF MEGHALAYA PRE-AUDITED BY PRE AUDIT TEAM during its visit from 19-01-2012 to 28-01-2012 OF 64TH SLC Dated 30-5-2011 Sl. No. Name & address of the Company Period of claim Amount approved by the SLC Amount recommended by Pre Audit Amount disallowed by Pre Audit by if any Remarks 67 M/S Meghalaya Feed Products 01-10-2008 to 31-12-2008 9474928 9474928 0 Sanctioned by the 58th SLC held on 07-05-2009 but not Audited, the present team Audited the case on request of Directorate as no such guide line was provided by DIPP before issuance of 44 points guide lines about cash payment. Hence the cash payment made to the transporters by the units have been allowed. 68 M/S Meghalaya Feed Products 01-01-2009 to 31-03-2009 13869552 13869552 0 Sanctioned by the 58th SLC held on 07-05-2009 but not Audited, the preset team Audited the case on request by Directorate as no such guide line was provided by DIPP before issuance of 44/45 points guide lines about cash payment. Hence the cash payment made to the transporters by the unit have been allowed." 6. The object of avoiding misuse of the subsidy is achieved because the claim of the petitioner has been audited by the Pay and Accounts Officer, Pay & Accounts Office, Ministry of MSMF, therefore, there could be no reason for the respondents to deny the claim of the petitioner. That apart, it shall be open for the respondents, if they so choose, to re-verify, in case they have any doubt about the audit conducted by the Pay and Accounts Officer, Pay & Accounts Office, Ministry of MSMF otherwise, the amount shall be disbursed subject to adherence to the norms. 7. Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents that they shall re-consider the claim of the petitioner, in the light of the aforesaid observations, for disbursement of the subsidy amounting to Rs. 94,74,928/- and Rs. 1,38,69,552/- for the periods of 01.10.2008 to 31.12.2008 and 01.01.2009 to 31.03.2009 respectively along with interest from the date of Pre-Audit report and to pass appropriate order thereon whatever permissible under rules within a period of four weeks. 8. Disposed of as above.