TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice" under the said section). As the Income Tax Act does not define the term "service", the assessee company has to take reference to the definition of service referred to in the SEZ Act, 2005 (given that the Section 10AA was introduced by SEZ Act, 2005 and referred to in the Second Schedule to the said Act) and further the SEZ Act, 2005 has overriding effect on all other enactments by virtue of section 51 of SEZ Act, 2005. Held that :- Though vide Instruction no. 1/2006 dated 24-03-2006, it was clarified that trading units can be set up in the SEZ. However, the modification was made on 24-05-2006 in which it was made clear that the deduction u/s 10AA will be available in respect of the trading in the nature of re-export of imported good- Thus one will have to consider the implication of Section 51 of the SEZ Act , which says that it will have overriding effect over all the other laws. It means that anything in-consistent to the provision of the SEZ Act will not be considered. Thus the word services as mentioned in Section 10AA cannot be construed in-consistently with the definition of services given in the SEZ Act. Under the SEZ act, the trading is included in the services p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bill, the AO noticed that the assessee was purchasing readymade goods which he was selling without value addition or any process added to it. 3. The AO noticed that the assessee was not having manpower to manufacture/process the turnover shown as sold by the assessee. 2.3 The above facts were confronted by the assessee and the assessee was asked as to why the deduction u/s 10AA be not denied. The assessee filed the reply vide letter dated 20th Dec. 2010. The submissions in brief are as under:- 1. The assessee company is continuously engaged in the business of trading and manufacturing of precious and semi precious stones, diamond and studded gold jewellery. In the immediately preceding year, the revenue itself has allowed deduction u/s 10AA of the Act. 2. The assessee company was granted letter of approval by the Development Commissioner, Surat u/s 15(9) of the SEZ Act to set up a unit for undertaking authorized operations of manufacturing and trading of the Diamond and Jewellery as mentioned in the letter of approval. 3. Attention was towards Section 10AA of the Act in which it has been mentioned that the unit which provided any services will be eligible to cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l v. Asstt. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 512 (Gau.) 2. Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC) 3. Jayalakshmi Leasing Co., In re, [1995] 228 ITR 1 (AT) (SB) The provisions which conferred the benefit to the assessee should be interpreted in spirit of strict construction. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions. 1. Kota Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 207 ITR 608/76 Taxman 245 (Raj.) 2. CIT v. Orissa State Warehousing Corporation [1993] 201 ITR 729 (Orissa) 3. Dr. (Mrs.) Renuka Datla v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 463/107 Taxman 143 (A.P.) 4. Novopan India Ltd. v. CCE 1994 (73) ELT 769 (SC) Thus the legislature has deliberately excluded the definition of services from SEZ Act from its scope. Therefore, the definition of services cannot be imported from SEZ Act. 2.5 A service is an interconnection between the provider and the client that creates and captures value. The trading cannot be considered as service. The AO has referred to the service provided by the doctor to the patient to make the meaning of services as clear as possible. The AO has referred to the definition of the services given in certain books. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of CBDT issued for Information Technology enabled services to define what "service" include. That the appellant is merely engaged in trading activity without any value addition which cannot be termed as services and, therefore, claim of deduction u/s 10AA regarding Surat Unit was not found justified. Further, plea of the appellant that similar deduction allowed last year was not accepted by the AO on the ground that principle of "Estopped" has little relevance when it comes to appreciation of a particular legal position as against the perception of such legal position at any time in the past. Relying on various case laws the AO held that existence of similar transactions cannot in any way operate as res judicata to preclude the authorities from holding such transactions as non service activities in the current year. Deduction claimed u/s 10AA was, therefore, rejected and addition of Rs. 122632018/- was made. It was submitted by the AR that a new unit in SEZ Surat commences manufacturing in FY 06-07 after obtaining all the approvals and permissions under SEZ Act, 2005. This Unit fulfils all the conditions laid down in section 10AA(4)/10AA(1) and the same is not in dispute. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods are re-exported by a Unit duly approved by Development Commissioner of the concerned SEZ. The appellant company's entire purchases are imported in SEZ unit and the entire goods are exported to foreign country. The appellant company is entitled for deduction u/s 10AA as the company fulfills all other terms and conditions. The AO's action of disallowing the entire claim of deduction u/s 10AA is not justified and, therefore, addition made by AO may be deleted. 2.7 The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee deleted the addition and directed the AO to allow deduction u/s 10AA of the Act after observing as under:- ''Contention of the AR is considered. The appellant company has unit in SEZ Surat area and besides the manufacturing activities the company is importing the goods and exporting the same and has claimed that what he is doing is covered by the word 'trading' as provided in the SEZ Act. The AO has not accepted the submission of AR on the ground that the definition of 'services' should not be taken from SEZ Act, 2005 when the Income tax Act has deliberately not referred to SEZ Act. The definition of expression in one statute cannot automatically b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der general agreement on trade, (ii) what is prescribed by the Central Govt. for the purpose of SEZ Act and (iii) which earns foreign exchange. Subsequently, the Central Govt. has prescribed the definition of 'service' by introducing rule 76 to the SEZ Rules, 206. The word services for the purpose of section 2(z) include trading and various other activities. Further, the explanation provides that the expression "trade" for the purpose of second schedule of the Act shall mean import for the purpose of re-export. Thus the explanation makes it clear that for second schedule of SEZ Act "which is nothing but section 10AA of IT Act", the trading means re export of imported goods. Since section 10AA owes its genesis to SEZ Act, services as defined in SEZ Act and as are authorized and permitted by SEZ Act should qualify. In that view of the matter, trading which is in the nature of re-export of imported goods should qualify as export of services. What the word 'services' is understood in common parlance has no significance while deciding the claim of deduction u/s 10AA. The SEZ Act, 2005 was enacted and notified along with SEZ Rules 2006 to give effect to foreign trade policy for the pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , therefore, deleted. The 1st and 2nd grounds of appeal are decided in favour of the appellant. 2.8 During the course of proceeding before us, the ld. DR drew our attention to various provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and SEZ Act. The word 'services' as mentioned in Section 10AA cannot be equated with the word 'services' as contained in SEZ Act. The ld. DR also drew our attention to Sections 27 and 51 of the SEZ Act and stated that these sections did not help the assessee to claim deduction u/s 10AA of the Act. We appreciate the way in which the ld. DR has been able to point out the central issues which are required to be considered by the Tribunal while deciding this appeal. We are reproducing the written submission of the ld. DR as under:- "The appellant herein submits the following written arguments in addition to the verbal arguments to be taken during the course of hearing in the above appeal. The only ground involved in this appeal is whether Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing the deduction of Rs. 12,26,32,018/- u/s 10AA when the conditions laid down u/s 10AA for claiming such deduction were not fulfilled by the assessee. 2. The facts of this case are that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts of the assessee. 4.1 First of all the AO held that the assessee was not carrying out any manufacturing activity. For this the first reason given by the AO is that at the beginning of the previous year under consideration i.e. as on 1-4-2007 the assessee did not have any machinery except factory land at Surat. The first machinery purchase was on 3-12-2007 which was a diamond polishing bench, which itself could not produce any goods. The other tools were bought after 31-1-2008 only. Thus up to first 10 months of the financial year the assessee could not have produced or manufactured any goods. Secondly, from the sales and purchase bills the AO noted that the assessee was purchasing readymade goods and the nature of goods purchased and sold was exactly the same and the assessee was not doing any process or value addition on the same. Thirdly, from the wages expenditure the AO further found that the assessee was not having manpower to manufacture/process the quantum of turnover shown by it. In view of these reasons the AO held that the assessee was actually not carrying out any manufacturing at Surat. 4.2 In respect of the claim of the assessee that it was also eligible for d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n some Supreme Court decisions cited on page 13 14 of her order. In view of the above discussion the AO disallowed the deduction of Rs.12,26,32,018/- claimed by the assessee u/s 10AA. 5. The assessee filed appeal against this disallowance of deduction of Rs.12,26,32,018/- u/s 10AA. In his order dtd.21-3-2011, ld. CIT(A) has granted full relief to the assessee. The decision of ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable in view of the reasons discussed below. 5.1 Ld. CIT(A) has given his conclusion on page 4 to 7 of his order. First of all it is seen that though the AC had given a specific finding that the assessee was not involved in manufacturing activity still Ld. CIT(A) has not given any decision on this finding. The assessee has also not challenged the absence of such finding before Ld. CIT(A) or Hon'ble ITAT. Therefore, the finding of AC that the assessee has not carried out any manufacturing may please be upheld. 5.2 Further, ld. CIT(A) has held, that for the purposes of deduction u/s 10AA(1) of the IT Act 1961 trading in the nature of import for re-export will be treated as providing of services and the assessee company will be eligible for deduction u/s 10AA. It is submitted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tood in a commercial sense, the expression "goods" will not included eatables prepared in a hotel. Further, the expression "manufacture" does not connote a trading activity and an activity carried on in a hotel can only be taken to be a trading activity and not a manufacturing activity. The assessee-company, which ran a group of hotels, claimed that it should be treated as an industrial company under s. 2(7)(d) of the Finance Act, 1966, and assessed to income-tax at 55% of its income. This claim was upheld by the Tribunal relying on the decision of the Madras High Court in New Taj Mahal Caf Ltd. v. Inspector of Factories , AIR 1956 Mad 600 and P. Lakshmanrao and Sons v. Addl. Inspector of Factories , AIR 1959 AP 142, where it had been held that the preparation of articles of food will amount to a manufacturing process as defined in the Factories Act. *Held, * that the Tribunal was not justified in its view and the assessee was not an industrial company entitled to the lower rate of tax." In view of this clear cut decision the definition of 'service' as per SEZ Act 2005 cannot be imported to the I.T. Act 1961. It is wrong to presume that SEZ Act is supreme for the pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sec. 10AA, only these three terms are to be used. Other terms in Sec. 10AA have to be interpreted as per the IT Act, itself or as they are used in the general parlance. Kind attention is drawn to section 27 and Second Schedule (copy enclosed) of the SEZ Act. Section 27 mentions that the provisions of I.T. Act, 1961 shall apply to developers and entrepreneurs in a SEZ subject to the modifications specified in Second Schedule: In the Second Schedule the various modifications made in the IT Act through this Schedule have been specified. It may be noted that through this Second Schedule a number of modifications numbered from (a) to (j) have been made in various sections of the I.T. Act 1961. The introduction of Section 10AA is one of such 10 modifications. These modifications are very specific and changes in the IT Act can be considered to the extent of these modifications only. In all these modifications a number of specific definition have been imported from the SEZ Act, 2005 but the definition of 'service' as provided in section 2(z) has not been brought in anywhere. Therefore the decision of Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the provisions of the I.T. Act as well SEZ Act, 2005. (3) Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benefit u/s 10AA will exclude trading other than trading in the nature of re-export of imported goods. In this regard it is submitted that the Development Commissioner of SEZ is not at all empowered to interpret the provisions of the IT Act. His jurisdiction is limited to implementation of the SEZ Act only. SEZ Act has only introduced Sec. 10AA in the I.T. Act, 1961. This Act does not empower him to interpret the IT Act. By doing this he has exceeded his jurisdiction. This letter cannot supersede the provisions which have been specifically made by the legislature. As regards Instruction 4 of 2006, dated 24/05/2006 claimed to be issued by the Deptt. of Commerce, first of all, it is submitted that this Instruction was kept on hold by the Department of Commerce vide another Instruction No. 5 dated 31.05.2006 (copy enclosed). Moreover, Deptt. of Commerce does not have any authority to issue instructions about Sec.10AA in the IT Act 1961. Any instructions about any provision of the IT Act can be issued by the CBDT, Deptt. of Revenue only. Further, the last line of para I of this Instruction is very important. It states that 'Appropriate amendments in this regard are being issued' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Profit (Rs. ) Trading 115,21,16,216 7,04,55,671 (6.11%) 4,34,19,349 (3.76%) Manufacturing 30,33,76,799 8,63,39,303 (28%) 7,92,20,589 (26.11%) First of all it is submitted that this break up of sales, gross margin and net profit for trading and manufacturing was neither given to the AO nor to the CIT(A) and it is submitted before Hon'ble ITAT for the first time. Therefore this break up is unverified and cannot be accepted to be correct at this stage. Secondly, prima facie this break up appears to be correct at this stage. Secondly, prima facie this break up appears to be unusual because in this the net profit from manufacturing is shown as 26.11% but from trading it is shown as 3.76%. However, it is submitted that the AO has already given a finding that the assessee did not carry out any manufacturing as provided u/s 10AA of the IT Act and this finding has remained unchallenged till now. Therefore the above claim of the assessee about having carried out any manufacturing cannot be accepted. In view of the above discussion, it is requested that the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use and shall include processes such as refrigeration, cutting, polishing, blending, repair, remaking, reengineering, and includes agricultural, aquaculture, animal husbandry, floriculture, horticulture, pisciculture, poultry, sericulture, viticulture and mining. The word services have been defined in sub-clause (z) of section 2 of SEZ Act, 2005. ( z ) "services" means such tradable services which : - ( i ) are covered under the General Agreement on Trade in Services annexed as IB to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation concluded at Marrakes on the 15th day of April, 1994. ( ii ) may be prescribed by the Central Government for the purpose of this Act: and ( iii ) earn foreign exchange; The Central Government has defined the services in the rule 76 of the SEZ Rules, 2006 which inter alia includes trading. The extract of the rule 76 is reproduced as under: "Trading, warehousing, research and development services, computer software services, including information enabled services such as back-office operations, call centers, content development or animation, data processings, engineering and design, graphic information system services, human resou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... val by Development Commissioner) as per sec. 2(i) of SEZ Act, 2005. ( b ) The unit has started to provide services (trading i.e. import for the purpose of re-export only) and manufacturing activity during the previous year relevant to assessment year under proceeding. ( c ) Assessee company has exported goods or services by filing bills of entry/shipping bill in physical mode. The assessee company claimed profits and gains of manufactured goods as well as of trading of goods as exempt u/s 10AA. The details are as under: - Sales Head Nature of Activity Sales Value Gross Margin Sales - Trading Trading 1,139,900,844.00 69,003,388.00 Sales - Mounting Trading 12,215,372.00 1,450,283.00 Sales - Manufacturing Manufacturing 303,376,799.00 86,339,303.00 1,455,493,015.00 156,792,974.00 Total Expenses during the year 07-08. Direct Expenses 933,380.37 Indirect Expenses 33,219,654.83 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 006-EPZ) which states as follows: "Subject: Modification in Instruction No. 1/2006 dated 24th March, 2006 of the Department of Commerce regarding setting up of trading units in the Special Economic Zones - Reg. This Department has been receiving representations on difficulties faced by the existing SEZ units holding approval to do trading, that their exports are adversely affected and also that several of their orders are held up due to the restriction on trading on account of the above instruction. Taking cognizance of these representations, in partial modification of the above-referred Instruction dated 24th March, 2006, it has been decided that while units in the Special Economic Zones who hold approval to do trading activities will be allowed to carry out all forms of trading activity, the benefits under Section 10AA will exclude trading other than trading in the nature of re-export of imported goods. Appropriate amendments in this regard are being issued. 2. In the meantime, sourcing from domestic area may be permitted by units in the SEZs which are allowed to do trading, subject to this circular being cited and on production of an undertaking by the concerned unit that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 005. Thus the discussions references and decisions used in assessment order are not at all applicable in the case. It will be thus clear that trading activity in the nature of re-export of imported goods is falling under the head service u/s 10AA of I. T. Act, 1961 r/w section 2(z) of SEZ Act, 2005 r/w rule 76 of SEZ Rules, 2006 and above referred notification. We also submit herewith clarification issued by Development Commission SEZ, Sachin, Surat issued to the assessee company which is self explanatory and states that assessee company is entitled to the benefit of section 10AA of I. T. Act, 1961 in respect to import of goods which are re-exported to buyers in other countries in view of provisions of section 2(z) of SEZ Act, 2005 r/w Section 27 and section 51 of SEZ Act, 2005 r/w rule 76 of SEZ Rules, 2006. (P.B. Page 8). In view of the above it is evident that not only profits and gains of manufactured goods but also trading of goods are allowed for getting the exemption u/s 10AA of the I.T. Act, 1961 if imported goods are re-exported by a unit duly approved by development commissioner of concerned SEZ. The assessee company's entire purchases are import in SEZ unit. The entire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... establishing the World Trade Organisation concluded at Marrakesh on the 15th day of April, 1994; ( ii ) may be prescribed by the Central Government for the purposes of this Act; and earn foreign exchange 2.12 Before we proceed further, it will be useful to reproduce Section 27 and Section 57 of the SEZ Act, 2005. 27. Provisions of Income - tax Act, 1961 to apply with certain modification in relation to Developers and entrepreneurs. - The provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), as in force for the time being, shall apply to, or in relation to, the Developer or entrepreneur for carrying on the authorized operations in a Special Economic Zone or Unit subject to the modifications specified in the Second Schedule. 51. Act to have overriding effect - The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. Rule 76 of SEZ Rules, 2006 is as under:- 76. The "services" for the purposes of [clause] (z) of section 2 shall be the following, namely: - Trading, warehousing, research and development se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich is not eligible for deduction. If no separate books of accounts have been maintained and the expenses have been incurred jointly for earning both the income then such expense have to be estimated by the ITO which are relatable to earn the non-exempted activities in order to arrive at the true and correct income. For this proposition, Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court observed that exemption clause in taxation statute has to be construed strictly and cannot be extended beyond the clear language used in the section. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 188/62 Taxman 480 had an occasion to consider the issue as to how the provision related to incentive for growth and development should be interpreted. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that such provision should be interpreted liberally. The provision construed so as to advance the objectives and not to frustrate it. It will be useful to reproduce the held portion. ''A provision in a taxing statute granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be construed liberally; and since a provision for promoting economic growth has to be interpreted liberally, the restriction on it t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... understood in the sense in which it is harmonious with the object of the statute to effectuate the legislative intention. It is equally settled law that if the language is plain and unambiguous, one Ld. CIT(A) only look fairly at the language used and interpret it to give effect to the legislative intention. Nevertheless, tax laws have to be interpreted reasonable and in consonance with justice adopting a purposive approach. The contextual meaning has to be ascertained and given effect to. A provision for deduction, exemption or relief should be construed reasonably and in favour of the assessee.''' 2.16 While holding that the word manufacture as defined in Section 10AA of the Act, w.e.f. Feb. 2006 will be applicable for allowing exemption u/s 10A to the assessee for the assessment year 2004-05. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court at pages 407 and 408 has observed as under:- ''We have already noticed that in substance the provisions of s. 10A and s. 10AA later introduced serve the very same purpose of granting exemption on the profits earned by industrial units in the free trade zone/Special Economic Zone. These provisions introduced in the IT Act are essentially implementation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of "manufacture" contained in the EXIM Policy is applicable for the purpose of the said provision. We have already noticed that "manufacture" as defined under the EXIM Policy has a wide and liberal meaning covering tea blending as well and so much so, blending and packing of tea qualify for exemption under s. 10A. Besides this, appellant-industry presently in the Special Economic Zone engaged in the same process of blending and packing of tea is specifically brought under the exemption clause through incorporation of s. 2(r) of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, in the provisions of s. 10AA of the IT Act. We are, therefore, of the view that the later amendment is only clarificatory and the definition of "manufacture" contained in s. 2(r) of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, incorporated in s. 10AA of the IT Act w.e.f. 10th Feb., 2006, which is essentially the same as the definition contained in the EXIM Policy, applies to s. 10A also. We, therefore, hold that blending of tea is a manufacturing activity which entitles the appellant-assessee for exemption under s. 10A of the IT Act for the asstt. yr. 2004-05. Accordingly the appeal is allowed by vacating the order of the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cerned unit that no Income tax benefits will be availed by the unit for trading, except in the nature of re-export of imported goods. 3. Development Commissioners are requested to note the above and take appropriate action. 2.17 In the above instruction, a reference has been made to Section 10AA of the Act. It is made clear to the entrepreneur having units in SEZ that benefit u/s 10AA will exclude other trading except in the nature of re-export of imported goods. Thus there is a promissory estoppel by the Govt. to the entrepreneur putting up the units in the SEZ that benefit u/s 10AA will be available on trading in the nature of re-export of imported goods. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., [1986] 158 ITR 574 (SC) had an occasion to consider the applicability of doctrine of promissory estoppel It will be useful to reproduce the following para from the above decision. ''The doctrine of promissory estoppel as explained above was also held to be applicable against public authorities as pointed out in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills' case [1979] 118 ITR 326 (SC). This court, in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills' case, quoted with ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould have referred Jeet Ram's case to a larger Bench, but we do not think it was right on their part to express their disagreement with the enunciation of the law by a co ordinate Bench of the same court in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills case [1979] 118 ITR 326 (SC). We have carefully Considered both the decisions in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills' case and Jeet Ram's case [1980] 3 SCR 689, and we are clearly of the view that what has been laid down in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills' case represents the correct law in regard to the doctrine of promissory estoppel and we express our disagreement with the observations in Jeet Ram's case [1980] 3 SCR 689, to the extent that they are in conflict with the statement of the law in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills' case [1979] 118 ITR 326 (SC) and introduce reservations cutting down the full width and amplitude of the propositions of law laid down in that case. Of course, we must make it clear, and that is also laid down in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills' case [1979] 118 ITR 326 (SC), that there can be no promissory estoppel against the legislature in the exercise of its legislative functions nor can the Government or public authority be d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 16th Dec. 1996, though the draft rules wee circulated on 03-01-1996. It will be useful to reproduce the head note of this case. ''It is indeed difficult to see on what principle can a Government, committed to the rule of law, claim immunity from the doctrine of promissory estoppels: It is elementary that in a republic governed by the rule of law, no one, howsoever high or low, is above the law. Everyone is subject to the law as fully and completely as any other and the Government is no exception. It is indeed the pride of constitutional democracy and rule of law that the Government stands on the same footing as a private individual so far as the obligation of the law is concerned: the former is equally bound as the latter. It is indeed difficult to see on what principle can a Government, committed to the rule of law, claim immunity from the doctrine of promissory estoppels. Can the Government say that it is under no obligation to act in a manner that is fair and just or that it is not bound by considerations of "honesty and good faith"? Why should the Government not be held to a high "standard of rectangular rectitude while dealing with its citizens"? There was a time when the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
