Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 918 (GAU)

State Of Assam v. Ever Assam Tea Private Limited

2019-08-21

A.K.GOSWAMI, AJIT BORTHAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : A.K. Goswami, J. Heard Mr. A. Kalita, learned State counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mrs. N. Saikia, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. These 4(four) intra-Court appeals are preferred against the common judgment & order dated 27.02.2018, whereby the writ petitions filed by the respective petitioners were partly allowed on the following terms:- "a. The decisions adopted in the said SLC meetings dated 22.08.2008, 30.03.2009 and 11.11.2010 impugned in these batch writ petitions are hereby set aside and quashed qua the writ petitioners, without affecting claims of any other parties. b. Consequently, the letters/communications to the respective petitioners for rejection of their respective claims for subsidy are also set aside and quashed. c. Resultantly, the Govt. of Assam, through its Commissioner/Secretary, Industries Department would now direct the State Level Committee (SLC) under 15% CCISS, 1997 and 30% NEIIPP, 2007 to convene its meeting within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order to take a fresh decision in respect of the applications made by the petitioners herein for their claim of subsidy in accordance with the respective schemes by keeping in mind the observations made herein. d. Needless to mention that any decision taken by the SLC would be forwarded to the competent authority of the Central Government. e. It is further directed that in the event such SLC has been disbanded by now, the State Govt. shall reconstitute such Committee at its earliest so that its meeting can be held within the time allowed to consider the claims of the petitioners. f. The directions contained herein shall not be construed to bind the Union of India in any manner, because the Union of India is not a party to this writ petition. shall reconstitute such Committee at its earliest so that its meeting can be held within the time allowed to consider the claims of the petitioners. f. The directions contained herein shall not be construed to bind the Union of India in any manner, because the Union of India is not a party to this writ petition. For the same reasons, the prayer made by the petitioners for a direction to the respondents to pay interest on the subsidy amount for inordinate delay in disbursing such claim is refused because the money payable as subsidy is not being paid by the State of Assam, hence, notwithstanding the fact that the proposal by the petitioners was rejected by the authorities under the State of Assam, as no part of money payable as subsidy under CCISS, 1997 or NEIIPP, 2007 flows from the coffers of the State exchequer, this Court is not inclined to saddle the State with the burden of interest on the subsidy claim amount." 3. Writ Appeal No.101/2018 arises out of a writ petition filed by M/s Ever Assam Tea Private Limited, which was registered as WP(C) No.3686/2012; Writ Appeal No.102/2018 arises out of a writ petition filed by M/s Vision Ispat Private Limited, which was registered as WP(C) No.3883/2012; Writ Appeal No.202/2018 arises out of a writ petition filed by M/s Jagunbari Tea Company, which was registered as WP(C) No.6755/2010 and Writ Appeal No.230/2018 arises out of a writ petition filed by M/s Ishwar Food Products Private Limited, which was registered as WP(C) No.4471/2012. 4. The above 4(four) writ petitions along with WP(C) No.5361/2010 (M/s Excellent Dairy & Farming Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.) were allowed as against which Writ Appeal Sl. No.219950/2014 (subsequently registered as Writ Appeal No.72/2014) Writ Appeal Sl. No.219953/2014 (subsequently registered as Writ Appeal No.73/2014); Writ Appeal Sl. No.219954/2014 (subsequently registered as Writ Appeal No.74/2014), Writ Appeal No.15/2014 and Writ Appeal No.14/2014, respectively, were filed. All these appeals were allowed by quashing the impugned orders passed in the writ petitions and restoring the writ petitions to their respective files. No.219953/2014 (subsequently registered as Writ Appeal No.73/2014); Writ Appeal Sl. No.219954/2014 (subsequently registered as Writ Appeal No.74/2014), Writ Appeal No.15/2014 and Writ Appeal No.14/2014, respectively, were filed. All these appeals were allowed by quashing the impugned orders passed in the writ petitions and restoring the writ petitions to their respective files. The aforesaid order was passed on the ground that adequate opportunity was not afforded to the State and as the documents had been filed in the appellate stage, which were taken on record, it was considered appropriate to direct the writ petitions to be decided afresh after taking into account the documents filed and the documents to be filed, if so desired by the writ petitioners. 5. It appears that subsequently WP(C) No.5361/2010 was disposed of by an order dated 03.01.2018 as infructuous on the ground that the writ petitioner had been granted relief in the meantime. 6. The question that has arisen for consideration in these appeals is whether an industrial unit can avail the benefit and incentive of only one of any of the following schemes, namely, (i) Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, 2007 (CCISS, 2007), which was a scheme under the North East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy, 2007 (NEIIPP, 2007), (ii) Tea Quality Up-gradation and Product Diversification Scheme (TQUPDS), (iii) Scheme for Promotion in Industries in the North East (SPINE) and (iv) Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, 1997 (CCISS, 1997). 7. Before proceeding further, it will be appropriate to briefly take note of the Schemes referred to above. 8. In pursuance of the NEIIPP, 2007 issued by the Ministry of Commerce & Industry (Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion) vide Office Memorandum dated 01.04.2007, by a Notification dated 27.07.2007 issued by the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India, Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, published in the Gazette of India Extra-Ordinary on 31.07.2007, the Government of India formulated CCISS, 2007 for the North Eastern Region comprising of the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim and Tripura with a view to accelerate the industrial development of the region. The Scheme is to remain in operation from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2017. Under the NEIIPP, 2007, all new industrial Units, which go in for substantial expansion and are located anywhere in North Eastern Region, are eligible for Capital Investment Subsidy. The Scheme is also applicable to service sector activities/ industries as indicated therein. The Scheme is to remain in operation from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2017. Under the NEIIPP, 2007, all new industrial Units, which go in for substantial expansion and are located anywhere in North Eastern Region, are eligible for Capital Investment Subsidy. The Scheme is also applicable to service sector activities/ industries as indicated therein. All eligible industrial units located in the North Eastern Region shall be given Capital Investment subsidy @ 30% of their investment in plant and machinery or additional investment in plant and machinery. The limit for automatic approval of subsidy at this rate would be Rs.1.5 Crore and for grant of capital Investment Subsidy higher than Rs.1.5 Crore but up to a maximum of Rs.30 Crores, there will be an Empowered Committee set up vide Office Memorandum dated 21.05.2007. Proposals which are eligible for a subsidy higher than Rs.30 Crores will be placed by the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion before the Union Cabinet for its consideration and approval. North Eastern Development Finance Corporation (NEDFi) is the designated nodal agency for disbursement of Capital Investment Subsidy under the Scheme on the basis of the recommendation of the SLC of the concerned State Government, the Empowered Committee and the Union Cabinet, as the case may be. 9. For the 11th plan period commencing from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2012, the Tea Board under the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India had formulated TQUPDS. The main objective of TQUPDS is to serve as a catalyst for tea factories/blending/packaging units to undertake investments in modern technologies /processes, either for expansion or for replacement, which would eventually enable quality improvement and higher realisations through the production of better quality/value added teas. The objective of the Scheme was to encourage quality upgradation and product diversification for producing green tea and speciality teas. All tea manufacturers and others who are dealing with the value addition of tea such as blending, packing, tea bagging, etc. are eligible to claim subsidy subject to fulfilment of the terms & conditions of the Scheme. The terms & conditions are laid down at Clause 2 to 11. The subsidy is backended which in other words means that the subsidy will be released only after procurement and installation of the machinery to the complete satisfaction of the Board. are eligible to claim subsidy subject to fulfilment of the terms & conditions of the Scheme. The terms & conditions are laid down at Clause 2 to 11. The subsidy is backended which in other words means that the subsidy will be released only after procurement and installation of the machinery to the complete satisfaction of the Board. Amongst others, it is specifically stated that the subsidy shall not be allowed for any equipment if imported under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Import Scheme (EPCGI Scheme) and that subsidy cannot be claimed for the same activities that had been carried out with funds withdrawn from Tea Development Accounts Scheme and only 1(one) application per factory in a financial year shall be entertained for consideration of subsidy. 10. Spine was introduced by the Ministry of Department of Development of North Eastern Region (DoNER) with the objective of giving more incentives for setting up of industries in the North Eastern Region. As per the Scheme, North Eastern Council (NEC) will subsidise 25% of the project cost or Rs.50 Lakhs, whichever is less. For the purpose of calculating the amount of subsidy, factors such as land, cost of building, cost of plant and machinery, cost of miscellaneous fixed assets and, where the total cost of the project is below Rs.25 Lakhs, the preliminary pre-operative cost, are to be taken into consideration. The Scheme itself indicates that all sanctions and also the amount sanctioned would be subject to the availability of fund with the NEC for the purpose. It is also provided that if the NEC/Financial Institution concerned is satisfied that the subsidy or grant to a beneficiary has been obtained by misrepresentation as a result of which the project goes out of business/closes production/ceases functioning within 5(five) years of commencement of business, the NEC through its duly constituted officers reserve the right to take appropriate remedial measures including refund of the grant of subsidy sanctioned, after giving the beneficiary an opportunity to be heard. 11. By a Notification dated 01.06.1998 issued by the Government of India, Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, CCISS, 1997 was announced for industrial units in the North Eastern States with a view to accelerate the industrial development in the region. The same came into effect from 24.12.1997 and remained in force till 31.03.2007. 11. By a Notification dated 01.06.1998 issued by the Government of India, Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, CCISS, 1997 was announced for industrial units in the North Eastern States with a view to accelerate the industrial development in the region. The same came into effect from 24.12.1997 and remained in force till 31.03.2007. The Scheme was applicable to all industrial units in the Growth Centres approved for the North Eastern Region and also to the new industrial units or their expansion or the expansion in other Growth Centres or industrial estates, parks, etc., set up by the States in the North Eastern Region and new industrial units or their substantial expansion in the specified industries as indicated in Annexure A thereto located outside these Growth Centres and other indentified locations. 12. Clause 8 of the CCISS, 2007 provides that industrial units eligible for subsidy under the Scheme will be required to get themselves registered with the State Industry Department concerned prior to taking effective steps for setting up new industrial units or initiating substantial expansion of existing units and to indicate their assessment of the total new or additional fixed capital likely to be invested by them in the plant and machinery. How the SLC has to be constituted is laid down in Clause 9 and the SLC is tasked to decide whether the unit qualifies for the grant of subsidy and also about the quantum of subsidy. Clause 12 of the CCISS, 2007 reads as follows:- "12. Rights of the Centre/State Government/Financial Institutions If the Central Government/State Government/Financial Institution concerned is satisfied that the subsidy to an industrial unit has been obtained by misrepresentation as to an essential fact, furnishing of false information or if the unit goes out of production within 5 years after commencement of commercial production, the Central Government/State Government/NEDFi may ask the unit to refund the grant or subsidy after giving an opportunity to the unit of being heard." 13. As in CCISS, 2007, there is an identical Clause 12 in CCISS, 1997. Under the CCISS, 1997 also, procedure for disbursement of subsidy is laid out through a Committee. It is common ground that the said Committee is also called the SLC. 14. At this stage, it will be apposite to briefly notice the relevant facts in the writ petitions and the stand taken by the State respondents. 15. Under the CCISS, 1997 also, procedure for disbursement of subsidy is laid out through a Committee. It is common ground that the said Committee is also called the SLC. 14. At this stage, it will be apposite to briefly notice the relevant facts in the writ petitions and the stand taken by the State respondents. 15. The petitioner in WP(C) No.3686/2010 is engaged in manufacturing of CTC Tea and Black Tea. The petitioner was granted a certificate of registration under NEIIPP, 2007 for undertaking substantial expansion under CCISS, 2007. To avail the benefit under the CCISS, the petitioner had applied on 02.03.2009 complying with all formalities. The application was duly verified and thereafter, the General Manager, District Industries & Commerce Centre, vide letter dated 23.03.2009, had forwarded the claim of the petitioner to the Director of Industries & Commerce. The Additional Director (FP) had written a letter dated 03.04.2010/12.04.2010 informing that the SLC, in its meeting held on 31.03.2010, had approved the claim made by the petitioner towards 30% CCISS for an amount of Rs.15,25,100/- and, therefore, the petitioner was called upon to execute a Deed of Agreement within 1(one) week from the date of issue of the letter for forwarding the proposal to NEDFi for disbursement of the claim amount. However, the petitioner, later on came to learn that the SLC, in its 12th meeting held on 11.11.2010, had rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the SLC was of the opinion that "dual benefits either from the Tea Board or SPINE should not be given" with the further observation that they could apply for incentives under CCISS by surrendering the amount received from SPINE/Tea Board, etc. 16. The petitioner in WP(C) No.3883/2012 is engaged in manufacturing of TMT Bars and Rods. It had also applied for CCISS under NEIIPP, 2007 on 05.12.2007 for registration and by a communication dated 16.02.2008, the petitioner was informed that the company had registered for the purpose of the scheme. In order to avail the benefit under the above mentioned CCISS, the petitioner had applied on 04.07.2008 and by a communication dated 17.11.2008, the petitioner was issued a certificate of registration for undertaking substantial expansion. The application was duly verified and thereafter, the General Manager, District Industries & Commerce Centre, vide letter dated 24.11.2008, had forwarded the claim of the petitioner to the Director of Industries & Commerce. The application was duly verified and thereafter, the General Manager, District Industries & Commerce Centre, vide letter dated 24.11.2008, had forwarded the claim of the petitioner to the Director of Industries & Commerce. The Additional Director (FP) had written a letter dated 03.04.2010/ 07.04.2010 informing that the SLC in its meeting held on 31.03.2010 had approved the claim made by the petitioner towards 30% CCISS for an amount of Rs.1,14,41,547/- and, therefore, the petitioner was called upon to execute a Deed of Agreement within 1(one) week from the date of issue of the letter for forwarding the proposal to NEDFi for disbursement of the claim amount. It is pleaded that the petitioner is entitled to Rs.1,48,90,000/- and that cost of electrical equipment was wrongly deducted from the amount of subsidy to which the petitioner was entitled to. Subsequently, the petitioner was informed by the Additional Director (FP) that the claim of the petitioner was placed in the meeting of the SLC held on 11.11.2010 and the extract of the minutes was also enclosed thereto, wherein it is indicated that the SLC was of the opinion that "dual benefits either from the Tea Board or SPINE should not be given" with the further observation that they could apply for incentives under CCISS by surrendering the amount received from SPINE/Tea Board, etc. The Commissioner of Industries & Commerce had issued a show cause notice dated 27.12.2011 intimating the petitioner that information was received that the petitioner had availed a grant of Rs.50 Lakhs under SPINE and despite that it had also applied for 30% CCISS under NEIIPP, 2007 by submitting an affidavit along with the claim application that it had not availed subsidy grant under Central/State Government/Organization, etc., suppressing the above fact and as such sought for a clarification within 10(ten) days. The Additional Director (FP) issued a letter dated 19/20-06-2012 asking it to submit the reply immediately in response to the letter dated 27.12.2011 to which the petitioner submitted its reply on 29.06.2012. The petitioner also gave the details of 28 entities, who received the benefits both under SPINE and CCISS. 17. The petitioner in WP(C) No.6755/2010 set up a CTC manufacturing unit having capacity of 5 Lakh Kg of made tea. It had decided to expand the unit and accordingly, several new machineries had been installed with capital cost of Rs.235.109 Lakhs. The petitioner also gave the details of 28 entities, who received the benefits both under SPINE and CCISS. 17. The petitioner in WP(C) No.6755/2010 set up a CTC manufacturing unit having capacity of 5 Lakh Kg of made tea. It had decided to expand the unit and accordingly, several new machineries had been installed with capital cost of Rs.235.109 Lakhs. The petitioner had applied on 03.01.2008 for availing the benefit under CCISS, 1997 and the same, after scrutiny and physical verification, was forward by the General Manager, District Industries & Commerce Centre vide his letter dated 31.03.2008 to the Director of Industries & Commerce, Assam for availing the benefit of the scheme for making substantial expansion. However, the petitioner received a copy of the letter dated 23.04.2010/26.04.2010 issued by the Additional Director (EP), Office of the Commissioner of Industries & Commerce addressed to the General Manager, District Industries & Commerce Centre, wherein it was indicated that the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the SLC in its meeting held on 30.03.2009 as the unit had already availed grant from SPINE. 18. The petitioner in WP(C) No.4471/2012 is engaged in the business of manufacturing of wheat products. The petitioner had applied for registration under the CCISS, 1997, which was notified by the Ministry of Industries, Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, by Notification dated 01.06.1998, to the General Manager, District Industries & Commerce Centre. The General Manager, District Industries & commerce Centre, upon scrutiny and verification of the application, by communication dated 12.07.2005, informed the petitioner that the petitioner had registered under the CCISS, 1997. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted its claim complying with all formalities and the same was duly forwarded by the General Manager, District Industries & Commerce Centre vide his letter dated 18.12.2006 to the Director of Industries & Commerce recommending an amount of Rs.14,79,256/- for 15% claimed under the CCISS. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted its claim complying with all formalities and the same was duly forwarded by the General Manager, District Industries & Commerce Centre vide his letter dated 18.12.2006 to the Director of Industries & Commerce recommending an amount of Rs.14,79,256/- for 15% claimed under the CCISS. The claim of the petitioner was approved by the SLC in its meeting held on 04.12.2007 but subsequently, it received the copy of a letter dated 16.12.2008 issued by the Additional Director (FP) addressed to the Managing Director, NEDFi and General Manager, District Industries & Commerce Centre informing that the SLC had cancelled the claim of the petitioner in its meeting held on 22.08.2008 on the ground that incentive under SPINE includes incentive on investment on plant and machinery and, therefore, it should not be granted on the same component more than once. 19. In the affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 in WP(C) No.4471/2012, it is stated that the petitioner therein had already availed grant amounting to Rs.19.57 Lakhs under SPINE and, therefore, the SLC in the meeting held on 22.08.2008 decided to modify the decision of its meeting dated 04.10.2007, whereby approval was granted for Rs.14,79,256/- as 15% CCISS, holding that as the grants availed under SPINE includes incentives on investment in plant and machinery, incentive should not be granted on the same component more than once as per Rule 209 of the General Financial Rules, 2005. In the additional affidavit filed, statements are made based on the minutes of the meeting dated 21.02.2007 held by the Ministry of DoNER that the facilities provided through SPINe are not over and above the subsidy being provided under NEIIPP, 1997. It is also stated that the petitioner had suppressed the material fact to the effect that it had availed the benefit under the same head through SPINe and had submitted a false affidavit that it had not availed any such benefit from any other institution. The affidavit was submitted by the petitioner on 18.12.2006, wherein in Paragraph 4, it is stated as follows:- "4. That no subsidy grant under the State Government/Central Government, etc. have been availed to me/us on the items mentioned in the claim application form." In the reply affidavit filed to the affidavit-in-opposition, it is stated that Rule 209 of the General Financial Rules, 2005 is wholly irrelevant. That no subsidy grant under the State Government/Central Government, etc. have been availed to me/us on the items mentioned in the claim application form." In the reply affidavit filed to the affidavit-in-opposition, it is stated that Rule 209 of the General Financial Rules, 2005 is wholly irrelevant. In the affidavit-in-reply filed to the additional affidavit, it is pleaded that the observations made in the meeting held on 21.02.2007, which was held for review of SPINE, has no bearing as the Secretary of DoNER, under whose Chairmanship the meeting had taken place, is not authorised for altering the Scheme of subsidy envisaged under SPINE. 20. In WP(C) No.6755/2010, it is stated that the CCISS, 1997 and SPINE are having separate guidelines and in this petition also as in WP(C) No.4471/2012, some provisions of SPINE is dealt with. It is stated that there is no bar for getting benefit both under SPINE or CCISS, 1997. The respondent No.4 in his affidavit filed took the same stand as in WP(C) No.4471/2012. It is stated that the petitioner had already availed subsidy/grant from SPINE in the same set of machines for which claim had now been made and had also submitted a false affidavit while submitting the claim for CCISS. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is stated that there was no provision for submitting any affidavit by the petitioner under CCISS, 1997 and there is also no bar for availing benefits both under CCISS, 1997 and SPINE. An additional affidavit was filed by the petitioner, where names of 29 industries were given, which had availed benefits, both under CCISS and SPINE. Another additional affidavit was filed by the petitioner stating that though some notices were issued to the industries, which are availing dual benefit, no further action was taken. 21. In WP(C) No.3883/2012, the petitioner had given a list of 28 industries, which have received benefits under CCISS and SPINE. An affidavit was filed by the respondent No.3, wherein it is stated that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that it had not availed any grants/subsidy from State/Central Government/Organisation in its affidavit. 21. In WP(C) No.3883/2012, the petitioner had given a list of 28 industries, which have received benefits under CCISS and SPINE. An affidavit was filed by the respondent No.3, wherein it is stated that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that it had not availed any grants/subsidy from State/Central Government/Organisation in its affidavit. In the additional affidavit filed by the respondents, submission of false affidavit is reiterated and reliance is placed on the minutes of the meeting of the Ministry of DoNER held on 21.02.2007 to highlight that the facilities provided through SPINE are not over and above the subsidy being provided under NEIIPP, 1997. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner's new industrial unit has not received any subsidy amount under any Scheme. There is no provision for submitting any affidavit under the Scheme in question. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner against the additional affidavit, it is stated that reliance placed upon the minutes of the meeting dated 21.02.2007 is misconceived and reference is made to the meeting held on 12.01.2009, wherein the Commissioner of Industries, Assam had observed that SPINE guidelines issued by NEC had never indicated that industrial unit cannot avail other grants and subsidies from other sources. 22. In WP(C) No.3686/2010, the respondents had taken the same stand in the affidavit as taken in the affidavits filed in the other cases. In the reply affidavit, the petitioner stated that the CCISS, 2007, SPINE and TQUPDS are different and independent of each other and there is no bar in availing the benefits under each of the Schemes. The petitioner had also filed an affidavit-in-reply against the additional affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 reiterating the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed earlier to the affidavit-in-opposition filed in WP(C) No.3686/2010. 23. During the course of the arguments, Mr. Kalita has placed reliance on the Operational Guidelines in respect of various Subsidy Schemes under NEIIPP, 2007, which was circulated to the Secretary (Industries) of the State Governments of North Eastern Region vide letter dated 21.08.2008 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, to highlight that there is a requirement therein to submit an affidavit in a prescribed form and that the petitioners had sworn false affidavits. 24. Mr. 24. Mr. A. Kalita, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the said Operational Guidelines has to be read along with the NEIIPP, 2007 and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not correct in holding that as the scheme of NEIIPP, 2007 does not envisage any format of an affidavit, it cannot be construed that the petitioners had sworn false affidavits. When the very basis of the claim of the petitioners is based on falsehood, the writ petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, he contends. It is submitted by him that one industrial unit is allowed to avail only one subsidy and that is why the Operational Guidelines require filing of an affidavit that no subsidy/grant from the Central/State Government/Organization, etc. had been availed by it against the items mentioned in the claim application form and the requirement of filing such an affidavit is a clear proof that an applicant would be disentitled to claim subsidy under NEIIPP, 2007 if it had availed any other subsidy/ grant. That apart, Rule 209 of the General Financial Rules, 2005 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, also makes it abundantly clear that institution or organization seeking grants-in-aid, should also certify that it had not obtained or applied for grants for the same purpose or activity from any other Ministry or Department of the Government of India or State Government. He submits that these aspects of the matter were not considered by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, also erred in holding that the provisions of the General Financial Rules, 2005 in respect of grants-inaid cannot be made applicable to a case of subsidy. It is submitted by him that permitting an industrial unit to obtain multiple subsidies would be against public interest and it will amount to unjust enrichment of the writ petitioners. 25. Ms. It is submitted by him that permitting an industrial unit to obtain multiple subsidies would be against public interest and it will amount to unjust enrichment of the writ petitioners. 25. Ms. N. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondents supports the judgment & order passed by the learned Single Judge and reiterates that as the guidelines of NEIIPP, 2007 and CCISS, 1997 did not contain any provision that once a Unit had availed any subsidy under any other Scheme, such a unit would be disentitled to claim benefit under CCISS, 2007 and CCISS, 1997, rejection of the case of the petitioners by the SLC is rightly held to be arbitrary and illegal by the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners had been discriminated by way of rejection of their claims while granting benefits to 29 Units under NEIIPP, 2007 though such units had availed benefit under SPINE/Tea Board. The notices issued to such entities are a mere window dressing as no further consequential steps had been taken thereby giving legitimacy to the entitlement of the petitioners. The learned counsel submits that the General Financial Rules, 2005, on which reliance is placed by Mr. Kalita, has no application in the case of subsidy as held by the learned Singe Judge and if at all any embargo was intended to be put restricting availing of subsidy only in respect of any one of the Schemes, the same could have been incorporated in the Scheme itself. The learned counsel also invokes the doctrine of promissory estoppel and has relied on the cases which were cited before the learned Single Judge and taken note of in Paragraph 22 of the impugned judgment. It is also submitted that there was no Operational Guidelines in respect of CCISS, 1997 and in any view of the matter, the Operational Guidelines also cannot come to the aid of the appellants as there is no material on record to substantiate that on the date of filing the applications, any subsidy had been availed by the petitioners. 26. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 27. 26. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 27. Based on the contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on the basis of the materials on record, the learned Single Judge held that CCISS, 1997, SPINE and NEIIPP, 2007 (CCISS, 2007) are self contained Schemes and it makes no reference to the General Financial Rules, 2005. Though the SLC in the meeting held on 12.08.2009 was of the view that SPINE does not indicate that other grants and subsidy could not be availed, the SLC in its meetings held on 22.08.2008 and 11.11.2010 had rejected the applications for subsidy on the ground that the applicants including the petitioners herein had availed more than one subsidy and, therefore, it was obvious that the SLC had been oscillating on their stand about entitlement of subsidy to various applicants under different Schemes. In none of the SLC meeting, it had referred to any definite provisions contained in any policy, any clarification issued by the Central Government, General Financial Rules, 2005 or any previous rules in force, etc., which prohibited the industrial units to claim subsidy on the same component on which any previous subsidy or grant had been received. No clarification has also been produced by the State Government from the Central Government indicating that an industrial unit cannot avail other grant and subsidy from other sources. When in the meetings dated 22.08.2008 and 11.11.2010, the SLC had not referred to the General Financial Rules, 2005 to reject the respective claims of the petitioners, the authorities cannot subsequently be permitted to improve their stand by way of an affidavit. Nonetheless, as emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the State respondents on Rule 209 of the General Financial Rules, 2005, the said provision was considered along with Rules 206, 207 & 208 and on consideration of the same, the learned Single Judge concluded that the General Financial Rules, which dealt with grants-in-aid, cannot be made applicable in respect of grant of subsidy for capital investment for plant and machinery for setting up an industry or for capital increase of the industry under the Schemes of Tea Board, SPINE, CCISS, 1997 or NEIIPP, 2007 (CCISS, 2007). 28. 28. The learned Single Judge had elaborately dealt with the provisions of the General Financial Rules, 2005 and came to the conclusion that grants-in-aid and loans, which find mention in the General Financial Rules, 2005, cannot be applied in case of grant of subsidy. We are in agreement with the learned Single Judge as grants-in-aid and subsidy are having totally different connotations. 29. From a reading of Paragraph 28 of the impugned judgment, it is apparent that the Operational Guidelines in respect of various Subsidy Schemes under NEIIPP, 2007, on which much emphasis is placed by Mr. Kalita, was not placed before the learned Single Judge and the same is demonstrated by the fact that the learned State counsel, as noted above, in Paragraph 28 of the impugned judgment, had submitted that there was no requirement of filing any affidavit under the Scheme but the affidavit was insisted upon to be submitted along with the claim for subsidy on account of the provisions of Rule 209 of the General Financial Rules, 2005. 30. The Operational Guidelines, amongst others, provided for submission of an affidavit in Form No.1C(c) containing a statement that "no subsidy/grant under Central/State Government/Organization, etc. have been availed by me against the items mentioned in the claim application form." 31. The learned Single Judge in the context of filing of false affidavits, albeit, raised on a different plea, had occasion to deal with the same and had observed as follows:- "44) On a reading of the Scheme of NEIIPP, 2007 as produced before this Court, it does not envisage any format for an affidavit to be submitted. Therefore, the mere fact that the petitioner has submitted an affidavit to the effect - '...That no subsidy/grant under Central/State Government/ Organisation etc had been availed by me against the items mentioned in the claim application form', in the absence of any clause/paragraph in the NEIIP, 2007 that there was any bar to avail subsidy under more than one scheme, cannot be interpreted to mean that the petitioner has sworn an false affidavit, so as to import the rigours of paragraph 12 of the Scheme of NEIIPP, 2007 and to deny the benefit which had otherwise accrued to the petitioners. In fact, with all resources available with the State, the State has not been able to produce any material on record that as on the date of the said affidavit, the petitioner had been actually granted any benefit under SPINE or under the Tea Board, or that the schemes of Tea Board and SPINE had cast any prohibition to the petitioner to avail any other scheme, if subsequently announced by any authority, including the Central Government or the State Government. No material has been brought on record to show that the Central Government had conveyed to the State Government, any intention to put a cap to the limit of benefit that any industry in the State can avail under any incentive schemes, including those in force to avail subsidy by Tea Board, SPINE and NEIIPP, 2007. Moreover, in these cases also, the petitioners had made their application for subsidy sometime prior to the filing of the writ petitions, but they had not been actually granted such subsidy. Under the circumstances, when there was no certainty that when previously applied subsidy would actually be received by them, one cannot blame the petitioners to swear their affidavit to the effect that they not availed any subsidy or grant. There is no misstatement in their affidavit to the effect that the petitioners had not even applied for any other benefit. Thus, if the petitioners were not entitled to any benefit, the State could have taken a decision, but when there is no statement in the affidavits submitted along with the claim to the effect that 'the petitioners had not applied for any other subsidy/grant', this Court is unable to hold that the statements made in the said affidavits were 'false', as projected by the State." 32. A perusal of the above paragraph goes to show that a finding has been recorded that the petitioners had not been actually granted any subsidy or grant. Even if they had applied for any other subsidy, there is no misstatement in the affidavit as no affirmation was required to be made that they have not applied for any other subsidy. Even at the appellate stage, the appellants have failed to produce any material to demonstrate that, in fact, the petitioners had availed subsidy under different Schemes. 33. Even if they had applied for any other subsidy, there is no misstatement in the affidavit as no affirmation was required to be made that they have not applied for any other subsidy. Even at the appellate stage, the appellants have failed to produce any material to demonstrate that, in fact, the petitioners had availed subsidy under different Schemes. 33. On the issue of notices being issued to 29 industrial units, which had availed the benefits under SPINE, 1997 and had also been allowed benefits under NEIIP, 2007, the learned Single Judge observed as follows:- "50) Although a statement is made in paragraph 5 of the Additional Affidavit filed on19.09.2013 in WP(C) 3686/12 that the 29 industrial units who had availed benefits under SPINE, 1997and have also been allowed benefits under NEIIPP, 2007 had been issued notice to return such benefit, but there is nothing on record to show that the State Government had enforced their said purported notices at least till the day these writ petitions were heard. Under the circumstances, this Court is constrained to hold that there is no material on record to show that the Central Government or the State Government had done any wrong in granting of approval to 29 similarly situated industrial units named in the writ petition. Hence, this is not a case where one wrong done in a previous case would be used as a precedent for perpetuating another wrong, as submitted by the learned State Counsel. Hence, this is in no way a case where the petitioner is attempting to enforce negative equality, which is deprecated in the case of (i) Kastha Niwarak Grahnirman, etc. (supra) and (ii) Rajkumar Sharma (supra), relied upon by the respondents. Hence, those two cases are found to have no application in the present case in hand." 34. Hence, this is in no way a case where the petitioner is attempting to enforce negative equality, which is deprecated in the case of (i) Kastha Niwarak Grahnirman, etc. (supra) and (ii) Rajkumar Sharma (supra), relied upon by the respondents. Hence, those two cases are found to have no application in the present case in hand." 34. The learned Single Judge, on the basis of the materials available on record, was of the view that there was no condition in any of the Schemes/Policies in force for grant of subsidy, which prescribed a condition precedent that in order to avail the benefit of subsidy under CCISS, 1997 or CCISS, 2007, any industrial unit must not have availed the benefit of any other subsidy Scheme and capital investment granted by the Tea Board or under SPINE, 1997 or benefit of similar nature under any other Central or State Government Scheme and, therefore, it was not open for the State Level Committee (SLC) to reject the application of the petitioners. In this regard, the learned Single Judge also held that SLC was empowered to act within the parameters and/or four corners of the Schemes and in the facts of the cases, the SLC acted beyond the mandate of CCISS, 1997 and CCISS, 2007. Grant of subsidy to eligible industrial units is essentially a policy decision. The plea taken by the appellants that an eligible industrial unit should not avail benefit from more than one source is really in the domain of policy. No contrary material has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellants that as a matter of policy, it had been decided that subsidy under only one of the Schemes can be availed by an industrial unit, to persuade us to take a different view. 35. In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in these appeals and accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.