JUDGMENT : AKIL ABDUL HAMID KURESHI, J. 1. Petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to issue appropriate notification giving effect to the provisions of Tripura Industrial Investment Promotion Incentive Scheme, 2007 [here-in-after to be referred to as the said scheme] granting reimbursement of Commodity Taxes/Value Added Tax paid by the petitioner under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 [TVAT Act, for short] for the period from 2008-09 to 2013-14 and for a further direction that such incentives be released in favour of the petitioner. 2. Brief facts are as under: Petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in manufacture and sale of rubber. Petitioner is a registered dealer under the TVAT Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 3. For industrial development of the State of Tripura, said scheme was formulated. Detailed provisions were made in the said scheme under which subject to fulfilment of certain conditions new industries would receive certain incentives. We would take note of relevant provisions of the said scheme in detail at a later stage. Suffice it to record at this stage that Clause 9 of the said scheme pertains to reimbursement of Commodity Taxes. As per Clause 9.1 subject to the notification to be published by the State Government certain categories of the industrial enterprises commencing commercial production in Tripura would be eligible for reimbursement of the commodity taxes, including Tripura Value Added Tax, Central Sales Tax and Purchase Tax paid by the enterprise either for purchase of inputs or for finished products as per applicable provisions in accordance with the details provided in Clauses 9.2 and 9.3 of the said scheme. 4. Attracted by the said announcement of the State Government, the petitioner set up its industrial unit making investment of an amount of Rs. 3,82,00,000/- [rounded off] for processing and manufacturing Indian Standard Natural Rubber at Industrial Growth Centre, Bodhjung Nagar, Agartala after obtaining necessary permissions from all Government authorities including the Pollution Control Board. Commercial production commenced on 19.01.2009 and the petitioner started selling its finished products from 02.02.2009. Procurement of raw material for production of such rubber was mainly made from the local producers. From the said year onward the petitioner periodically presented claims for reimbursement of the incentives as per said scheme before the concerned department of the State of Tripura. Commercial production commenced on 19.01.2009 and the petitioner started selling its finished products from 02.02.2009. Procurement of raw material for production of such rubber was mainly made from the local producers. From the said year onward the petitioner periodically presented claims for reimbursement of the incentives as per said scheme before the concerned department of the State of Tripura. These incentives, however, were not paid. According to the petitioner, the total amount of such incentives up to the assessment year 2013-14 comes to Rs. 2,48,25,659/-. In paragraph 10 of the petition the petitioner has averred that the representatives of the Company had approached the Government authorities on various occasions for release of the said amount and incentives, however, till date no fruitful result had come out. 5. According to the petitioner this act of the respondents is wholly illegal and unlawful. The State of Tripura having framed their incentives scheme, cannot resile from the contents thereof without citing proper reasons. 6. On the other hand, the respondents have filed replies, mainly taking two grounds firstly, that the incentive claims of the petitioner were not in order since they were not verified and countersigned by the competent authority. More substantial objection taken by the respondents, however, is that availability of such incentives was subject to issuance of notification by the Finance Department of the State Government. Since no such notification was issued the petitioner cannot base its claim only on the incentive scheme. It is further pointed out that in the said incentive scheme of 2007 was superseded by the fresh incentive scheme of 2012 which also was never operationalized for want of issuance of notification by the Government. 7. Based on such materials on record, learned counsel Sri Saraf contended that the respondents are precluded from resiling from their initial promise of granting the incentive as contained in the said scheme. Mere refusal to issue the notification cannot be the ground for not honouring the promise and commitment made by the State Government. The petitioner was attracted by the said incentive scheme. A new industry was set up within the State at considerable capital investment on the premise that there shall be certain tax waivers for a specified period. The petitioner having fulfilled all the conditions for receiving the incentive, the same ought to have been released by the respondents. The petitioner was attracted by the said incentive scheme. A new industry was set up within the State at considerable capital investment on the premise that there shall be certain tax waivers for a specified period. The petitioner having fulfilled all the conditions for receiving the incentive, the same ought to have been released by the respondents. On the principle of promissory estoppel the respondents cannot deny the petitioner's legitimate claims. But for the offer of incentive the petitioner would not have set up the industry. The petitioner had thus on the basis of the promise held out by the Government changed its position. 8. In support of his contentions, counsel relied on certain decisions reference to which would be made at an appropriate stage. 9. On the other hand, learned panel counsel Mr. Arijit Bhowmik appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the petition contending that Clause 9 of the said scheme clearly provided that the benefits would be available only upon issuance of notification by the Government. No such notification has been issued. The petitioner had no vested right to claim the incentive. No directions can be issued for the issuance of notification. The claims were also not verified by the competent authority namely the Superintendent of Taxes. He submitted that the petition suffers from gross delay and latches. For the claims of the assessment year 2008-09 onwards, the petition came to be filed only in the year 2016. 10. In order to decide the issues under consideration we may take a closer look at the terms to the said scheme. The said scheme was published by the Government of Tripura in a booklet form which also contained statistical data and other information about the State. This booklet contained the following title:- “Tripura- A dynamic kaleidoscope of a booming industry! Tripura Industrial Investment Promotion Incentives Scheme, 2007.” In the beginning of this document we find a message from the then Minister of Industries & Commerce, Forest and Rural Development expressing his pleasure at learning that the Directorate of Industries and Commerce had published a booklet on Tripura Industrial Investment Promotion Incentives Scheme, 2007. His message contained following further declaration:- “We, at Tripura welcome you to a truly investor-friendly environment and cordially invite you to consider setting up projects in Tripura. His message contained following further declaration:- “We, at Tripura welcome you to a truly investor-friendly environment and cordially invite you to consider setting up projects in Tripura. We assure that our Government will go an extra mile with all necessary support, to take your vision forward.” This booklet contained information about the State, its location and geography, the potential for development of certain industries such as rubber, bamboo, food processing, tea, etc. 11. Clause 2 of the scheme provided that the same would come into effect from 1st day of April, 2007 and would remain in force for a period of 5 years upto 31st March, 2012. However, in relation to an incentive being allowed to an enterprise the same would commence only from the commencement of commercial production. Clause 3 of the scheme contained various definitions including designated authority, enterprise, large, micro and medium enterprises etc. As per Clause 4.1 the scheme would be applicable to all micro, small, medium, ancillary and large enterprise which commence the commercial production in the State on or after 1st of April, 2007 but before 31st March, 2012 in private sector, co-operative sector, Self-help groups, joint sector and companies owned or managed by the State Government. 12. Clause 6 laid down the eligibility of an industrial enterprise for the incentives under the said scheme. Sub clause 4 thereof reads as under:- “6.4. The eligibility of enterprises for incentive under any Clause of Scheme-2007 shall, unless otherwise be specified, be limited to the amount calculated as per the respective Clause of Scheme-2007 reduced by the amount of incentive, subsidy or grant under any operative Scheme outside the Scheme-2007-including either under the NEIIPP-2007, or under any scheme operated by a Ministry or Department of Government of India or its agencies/boards/authority, or under any scheme operated by the North-Eastern Council, for promotion of industrial projects/investments-for which the enterprise is eligible. For the purpose of Scheme-2007, enterprises shall have to compulsory apply for the incentive, subsidy or grant under the appropriate operative Scheme outside the Scheme-2007 and indicate the claimed amount thereby while claiming the relevant incentive under Scheme-2007.” 13. Under Clauses 7 to 14 different incentives were prescribed. For example, Clause 7 pertains to Incentive on Fixed Capital Investment for Land and Civil Works. Clause 8 provided Procurement Preference, Clause 9 with which we are concerned referred to Reimbursement of Commodity Taxes and so on. Under Clauses 7 to 14 different incentives were prescribed. For example, Clause 7 pertains to Incentive on Fixed Capital Investment for Land and Civil Works. Clause 8 provided Procurement Preference, Clause 9 with which we are concerned referred to Reimbursement of Commodity Taxes and so on. Since the claim of the petitioner is based on Clause 9 of the scheme, the same may be reproduced below in its entirety:- “9. Reimbursement of Commodity Taxes: 9.1 Subject to the Notification to be published by the State Government in the Finance Department, the following categories of industrial enterprises commencing of commercial production in Tripura shall be eligible for reimbursement of the commodity taxes, including Tripura Value Added Tax, Central Sales Tax and Purchase Tax, paid by the enterprise either for inputs or for finished products as per applicable provisions, in accordance with the details in succeeding clauses 9.2 and 9.3; for the periods as specified hereunder: (a) All industrial enterprises, commencing commercial production on or after 1st April 2002 and which were allowed reimbursement of Sales Tax under Scheme 2002 shall continue to get the benefit in the form of reimbursement of Tripura Sales Tax as per Scheme-2002 till 31st March 2005; and thereafter from the 1st of April 2005, shall get the benefit in the form of reimbursement of Tripura Value Added Tax for the unexpired duration of five years. The total period for which a particular enterprise gets such benefit (including both under Scheme-2002 and under Scheme-2007) shall not exceed 5 years from the date of its set-up. (b) All eligible micro, small, medium and large enterprises which commences commercial production in the State, on or after the 1st of April, 2007, in the private sector, co-operative sector, joint sector, self-help groups as also companies owned or managed by the State Government shall be given the benefit of reimbursement of Tripura Value Added Tax for a period of five years from their respective date of commencement of commercial production. 9.2 The eligibility period for reimbursement of commodity tax to be provided to each eligible enterprise shall be five years, reckoned from the date of commencement of commercial production of the enterprise, notwithstanding any intermittent closure or suspension of production for any reason. 9.2 The eligibility period for reimbursement of commodity tax to be provided to each eligible enterprise shall be five years, reckoned from the date of commencement of commercial production of the enterprise, notwithstanding any intermittent closure or suspension of production for any reason. Provided that if any eligible enterprise is sold or otherwise transferred to a new owner within this eligibility period of five years, the benefit of commodity tax reimbursement shall be available to such transferee or the new owner only for the unexpired portion of the said eligibility period of five years; and Provided further that the benefit of reimbursement of commodity tax will continue to be available to a particular enterprise till the expiry of the eligibility period of five years from the date of commencement of commercial production of that enterprise, even beyond the thirty first of March, 2012. 9.3 For the finished goods sold in Tripura: In relation to the TVAT realized from the consumer and deposited in Tripura by the enterprise against such sale of finished goods, the following shall operate: (a) In respect of raw materials or inputs sourced from within Tripura by payment of TVAT at that stage, as full input tax credit would be admissible to the enterprise under the TVAT Act and the net TVAT incidence of the enterprise would be nil, no reimbursement under the Scheme 2007 would be admissible. (b) In respect of raw materials or inputs sourced from within Tripura by payment of Purchase Tax at that stage and where full input tax credit for purchase tax is not admissible to the enterprise at the stage of sale as finished product, the enterprise shall be eligible for reimbursement equal to the net purchase tax incidence at the stage of raw material or input procurement. (c) In respect of raw materials or inputs sourced from outside Tripura by payment of Central Sales Tax at that stage and where full input tax credit for such CST paid is not admissible to the enterprise at the stage of sale as finished product, the enterprise shall be eligible for reimbursement equal to 50% of the net CST incidence at the stage of raw material or input procurement. 9.4 For the finished goods sold outside Tripura: In relation to the CST realized from the consumer and deposited in Tripura by the enterprise against such sale of finished goods outside Tripura, the following shall operate: (a) In respect of raw materials or inputs sourced from within Tripura by payment of TVAT at that stage and where full input tax credit for TVAT is not admissible to the enterprise under the CST Act, the enterprise shall be eligible for reimbursement equal to the net TVAT incidence at the stage of raw material or input procurement. (b) In respect of raw materials or inputs sourced from within Tripura by payment of Purchase Tax at that stage and where full input tax credit for purchase tax was not allowed to the enterprise at the stage of sale as finished product, the enterprise shall be eligible for reimbursement equal to the net purchase tax incidence at the stage of raw material or input procurement. (c) In respect of raw materials or inputs sourced from outside Tripura by payment of Central Sales Tax at that stage and where full input tax credit for such CST paid was not allowed to the enterprise at the stage of sale as finished product, the enterprise shall be eligible for reimbursement equal to 50% of the net CST incidence at the stage of raw material or input procurement. 9.5 The cumulative benefit of reimbursement of Commodity Taxes to an enterprise under the provisions of Clause 9.3 and 9.4 shall be limited to a maximum ceiling of Rs. 50 lakhs per annum. 9.6 The amount admissible to be reimbursed to any enterprise shall be calculated net of admissible credits under the relevant Tax Acts and provisions; and would not be allowed to the extent of eligible input tax credit for raw materials or inputs not applied for or availed by the enterprise or where such claim of enterprise has been disallowed by the competent tax authority for any reason. 9.7 The reimbursement of commodity tax shall be made only after necessary verification and corroboration from tax authorities of the involved states and the eligibility of the enterprise shall be subject to their furnishing the requisite documentary evidence and such other information as may be asked for by the competent authorities in the Industries & Commerce Department. 9.7 The reimbursement of commodity tax shall be made only after necessary verification and corroboration from tax authorities of the involved states and the eligibility of the enterprise shall be subject to their furnishing the requisite documentary evidence and such other information as may be asked for by the competent authorities in the Industries & Commerce Department. 9.8 All benefits under this Clause 9 are subject to policy changes that may be necessary, from time to time due to amendments in Tripura Value Added Tax Act 2005, Purchase Tax Act or CST Act, or other related statutory provisions, if any.” 14. Clause 17 is repeal and saving clause under which the previous incentives scheme of 2002 came to be repealed by promulgation of the scheme of 2007. 15. We have referred to the booklet published by the Industries Department of the State of Tripura which contains not only the scheme but also the statistical and other details of the State along with a message of the Hon'ble Minister in order to show that the scheme was formulated and published with funfair. It was aimed at drawing fresh investments and enterprises, who would be encouraged to set up new industries on the promise that certain incentives would be provided to such new industries who would commence commercial production after 01.04.2007. The scheme clarified that such incentives would not be available to the existing industries. In clear terms thus the State Government had offered these incentives to the new industries where commercial production would commence on or after 2007 and the incentives would be available till 31st March, 2012. In the context of Clause 9 it was provided that specified categories of industries commencing commercial production in the State would be eligible for reimbursement of commodity taxes including VAT, Central Sales Tax and Purchase tax paid by the enterprise either for inputs or for finished products as per applicable provisions. In fact, as per Clause 9.1(a) even those industries which had commenced commercial production before 01.04.2007 but after 01.04.2002, would also be eligible for such benefit to a limited extent, however, as per Clause 9.1(b) all eligible micro, small, medium and large enterprises which would commence commercial production in the State after 01.04.2007, would get the benefit of reimbursement of Tripura Value Added Tax for a period of 5 years from the respective date of commencement of commercial production. As per Clause 9.2 reckoning of this period of 5 years would be from the date of commencement of the commercial production notwithstanding any intermittent closure or suspension of production for any reason. Clause 9.4 provided the formula for providing such incentive where the finished goods were sold outside the State. Clause 9.5 however provided that the cumulative benefit of reimbursement to an enterprise under Clauses 9.3 and 9.4 shall be limited to a maximum ceiling of Rs. 50 lakhs per annum. 16. We have referred to these provisions contained in Clause 9 in order to demonstrate that the said scheme made detail provisions for recognizing the incentives in favour of eligible industries. The provisions were also made for the purpose of identifying the period during which such incentives would be available, for example, it was provided that once a commercial production commences the computation of period would continue irrespective of suspension of production for any reason. In short, the scheme was a detailed exhaustive scheme and left nothing to imagination in so far as the prospective entrepreneurs were concerned. In clear terms by promulgation of the said scheme the State Government invited entrepreneurs to make investments in the State by setting up new industries which upon fulfillment of the conditions contained in the scheme would receive certain incentives such as tax waivers. It would be too late in the day for the Government thereafter to backtrack on such firm promise made only on the ground that necessary notification in this regard was not issued by the Finance Department. It would be a classical example of the Government going back on its promise held out to an industry on the basis of which entrepreneurs were persuaded to make investments in the State. Had the respondents cited reasons for non issuance of the notification making out the grounds of larger public interest, the question of the principle of promissory estoppel yielding to the larger public interest would undoubtedly arise. In the present case, however, the respondents in their affidavits have cited no reason whatsoever for the failure of the Government to issue such notification. Merely citing non issuance of notification, in our opinion, in the present case, would not absolve the respondents from fulfilling the promises held out in the said incentive scheme. 17. In the present case, however, the respondents in their affidavits have cited no reason whatsoever for the failure of the Government to issue such notification. Merely citing non issuance of notification, in our opinion, in the present case, would not absolve the respondents from fulfilling the promises held out in the said incentive scheme. 17. Where a responsible authority such as the State Government formulates and publishes an incentive scheme making detail provisions for attracting investment, recognizing incentives, laying down conditions of eligibility for claiming such incentives, withdrawing from such scheme only by way of inaction of issuance of notification, would lead to applicability of the principle of promissory estoppel. It would also be a question of credibility of the Government of inviting investments and thereafter backing out from the promise of providing incentives by citing the reason of non issuance of notification, that too without justifying reasons for such inaction. 18. We may reiterate that this is not a case where the Government had merely made up announcement of formation of a scheme which for whatever reason never saw light of the day. Here is the case where a detailed scheme was prepared, promulgated and published. 19. In this context we may refer to some of the decisions cited by the counsel for the petitioner in this respect. Before that, we will make a brief reference to the land mark decision of the Supreme Court in case of M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1979) 2 SCC 409 in which it was held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is not really based on the principle of estoppel but it is a doctrine evolved by equity in order to prevent injustice. There is no reason why it should be given only a limited application by way of defence. It can be the basis of a cause of action also. It was further observed that as a doctrine of promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine it must yield when the equity so requires. If it can be shown by the Government that having regard to the facts it would be inequitable to hold the Government to the promise made by it, the Court will not raise equity in favour of the promisee and enforce the promise against the Government. If it can be shown by the Government that having regard to the facts it would be inequitable to hold the Government to the promise made by it, the Court will not raise equity in favour of the promisee and enforce the promise against the Government. However, for that it would not be enough for the Government just to say that the public interest requires that the Government should not be compelled to carry out the promise or that the public interest would suffer if the Government were required to honour it. If the Government wants to resist the liability it will have to disclose to the Court what are the facts and circumstances on account of which the Government claims to be exempt from the liability and it would be for the Court to decide whether those facts and circumstances are such as to render it inequitable to enforce the liability against the Government. Mere claim of change of policy would not be sufficient to exonerate the Government from its liability. In the present case no public interest has been pleaded, much less established enabling the Government to withdraw from the promise of tax waiver. 20. In case of Manuelsons Hotels Private Limited vs. State of Kerala and Others, (2016) 6 SCC 766 the Supreme Court reiterated that it is not the law that there can be no promissory estoppel against the Government in exercise of its Governmental, public or executive powers. That would be in complete contradiction of the decisions of the Supreme Court. It was further observed that the taxation is a sovereign or a Governmental function, but no distinction can be made between the exercise of a sovereign or Governmental function and a trading or business activity of the Government so far as the doctrine of promissory estoppel is concerned. It was further observed that whether the Government makes a promise knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the promisee and in fact the promisee acting in reliance on it, alters his position, the Government would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Government at the instance of the promisee, notwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise and the promise is not recorded in the form of formal contract. It was observed as under:- “20. It was observed as under:- “20. The above statement, based on various earlier English authorities, correctly encapsulates the law of promissory estoppel with one difference - under our law, as has been seen hereinabove, promissory estoppel can be the basis of an independent cause of action in which detriment does not need to be proved. It is enough that a party has acted upon the representation made. The importance of the Australian case is only to reiterate two fundamental concepts relating to the doctrine of promissory estoppel - one, that the central principle of the doctrine is that the law will not permit an unconscionable departure by one party from the subject matter of an assumption which has been adopted by the other party as the basis of a course of conduct which would affect the other party if the assumption be not adhered to. The assumption may be of fact or law, present or future. And two, that the relief that may be given on the facts of a given case is flexible enough to remedy injustice wherever it is found. And this would include the relief of acting on the basis that a future assumption either as to fact or law will be deemed to have taken place so as to afford relief to the wronged party.” 21. It was a case that the Government had pleaded that the provision in the Act which empowered the Government to grant exemption was deleted and therefore such exemption would not survive. In such background the Court after discussing at length the law on promissory estoppel, had concluded as under:- “36. In the present case, it is clear that no Writ of Mandamus is being issued to the executive to frame a body of rules or regulations which would be subordinate legislation in the nature of primary legislation (being general rules of conduct which would apply to those bound by them). On the facts of the present case, a discretionary power has to be exercised on facts under Section 3A of the Kerala Buildings Tax Act, 1975. The non-exercise of such discretionary power is clearly vitiated on account of the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel in terms of this Court's judgments in Motilal Padampat and Nestle (supra). On the facts of the present case, a discretionary power has to be exercised on facts under Section 3A of the Kerala Buildings Tax Act, 1975. The non-exercise of such discretionary power is clearly vitiated on account of the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel in terms of this Court's judgments in Motilal Padampat and Nestle (supra). This is for the reason that non-exercise of such power is itself an arbitrary act which is vitiated by non-application of mind to relevant facts, namely, the fact that a G.O. dated 11.7.1986 specifically provided for exemption from building tax if hotels were to be set up in the State of Kerala pursuant to the representation made in the said G.O. True, no mandamus could issue to the legislature to amend the Kerala Buildings Tax Act, 1975, for that would necessarily involve the judiciary in transgressing into a forbidden field under the constitutional scheme of separation of powers. However, on facts, we find that Section 3A was, in fact, enacted by the Kerala legislature by suitably amending the Kerala Buildings Tax Act, 1975 on 6.9.1990 in order to give effect to the representation made by the G.O. dated 11.7.1986. We find that the said provision continued on the statute book and was deleted only with effect from 1.3.1993. This would make it clear that from 6.9.1990 to 1.3.1993, the power to grant exemption from building tax was statutorily conferred by Section 3A on the Government. And we have seen that the statement of objects and reasons for introducing Section 3A expressly states that the said Section was introduced in order to fulfill one of the promises contained in the G.O. dated 11.7.1986. We find that, the appellants, having relied on the said G.O. dated 11.7.1986, had, in fact, constructed a hotel building by 1991. It is clear, therefore, that the non-issuance of a notification under Section 3A was an arbitrary act of the Government which must be remedied by application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel, as has been held by us hereinabove. The ministerial act of non issue of the notification cannot possibly stand in the way of the appellants getting relief under the said doctrine for it would be unconscionable on the part of Government to get away without fulfilling its promise. The ministerial act of non issue of the notification cannot possibly stand in the way of the appellants getting relief under the said doctrine for it would be unconscionable on the part of Government to get away without fulfilling its promise. It is also an admitted fact that no other consideration of overwhelming public interest exists in order that the Government be justified in resiling from its promise. The relief that must therefore be moulded on the facts of the present case is that for the period that Section 3A was in force, no building tax is payable by the appellants. However, for the period post 1.3.1993, no statutory provision for the grant of exemption being available, it is clear that no relief can be given to the appellants as the doctrine of promissory estoppel must yield when it is found that it would be contrary to statute to grant such relief. To the extent indicated above, therefore, we are of the view that no building tax can be levied or collected from the appellants in the facts of the present case. Consequently, we allow the appeal to the extent indicated above and set aside the judgment of the High Court.” 22. To conclude the discussion we may record that the Supreme Court in case of Union of India and Others vs. Unicorn Industries, (2019) 10 SCC 575 had reiterated the above principles, however, in facts of the case it was held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel must yield since the equity so demanded or where the public interest warrants. It was the case in which the Union of India had withdrawn certain exemptions on tobacco and tobacco products including cigarettes/cigars/Gutkha which were made available to the industries located in certain areas. The Court allowed the appeal of the Union of India and rejected the claim of the manufacturers which was based on the ground of promissory estoppel. 23. The ground of the applications of the petitioner not being in proper form or verification is purely technical objection and the defects if any are curable. 24. In the result, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for issuing appropriate directions. However, the petition is filed after considerable delay. While issuing the final directions, therefore, reliefs need to be moulded. 24. In the result, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for issuing appropriate directions. However, the petition is filed after considerable delay. While issuing the final directions, therefore, reliefs need to be moulded. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondents shall process the claims of the petitioner for reimbursement of the VAT and other taxes as per the Tripura Industrial Investment Promotion Incentive Scheme, 2007 and pay to the petitioner such sum as found admissible out of the claims of the petitioner for said assessment years. Such payment, however, shall carry no interest till the date of filing of the petition after which the amount will be paid along with simple interest @ 7% per annum till actual payment. These directions shall be carried out within a period of four months from today. 25. The petition is accordingly disposed of.