TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Notification of 1990 was in force. It only granted exemption of tax up to March 31, 1995. There was no promise held out to the petitioners that they would be given any benefit after 1995. Therefore, they set up the industries prior to March 31, 1995 knowing fully well that the benefit would be available to them only till March 31, 1995. The industries were set up before the Incentive Scheme of 1995 was even published. Therefore, there is no question of the promissory estoppel being applicable in the present case because the petitioners did not set up the industry on the basis of the Incentive Scheme of 1995. Hence this principle is not at all applicable to the facts of the present cases. - State is well within its power to otherwise wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , i.e., the date of implementation of the scheme. We are concerned with sub-clause (d) of clause 10 of the scheme which reads as follows: (d) All industrial units which were eligible for exemption under Revenue Department's Notification No. F.1-4(1)-TAX/86 dated October 27, 1990 shall get the sales tax exemption with effect from April 1, 1995 subject to the following stipulations and conditions: (i) Total exemption including the exemption availed under earlier notification will not exceed a period of five years. (ii) The benefit will be available for a period of five years from the date of first production irrespective of the fact that any unit has closed down between or has manufactured goods after a gap or many gaps in be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reply has clearly stated that the benefit of sales tax exemption would be available to the claimants till March 31, 2002 but from that day onwards, they will be governed by the new scheme. It is contended by Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioners that the State cannot withdraw what it has granted and that this is a case where the State is stopped from withdrawing the exemptions in view of the principle of promissory estoppel. The apex court in State of Rajasthan v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. [2004] 137 STC 438 (SC); [2004] 3 RC 444; [2004] 7 SCC 673, clearly held that Government is not precluded from withdrawing any exemption unless it is stopped from doing so on the ground of promissory estoppel. Even with regard to promi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Shrijee Sales Corporation v. Union of India [1997] 3 SCC 398. In State of Rajasthan v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. [2004] 137 STC 438 (SC); [2004] 3 RC 444; [2004] 7 SCC 673 the apex court held as follows: 26. In this case the scheme being notified under the power in the State Government to grant exemptions both under section 15 of the RST Act and section 8(5) of the CST Act in the public interest, the State Government was competent to modify or revoke the grant for the same reason. Thus what is granted can be withdrawn unless the Government is precluded from doing so on the ground of promissory estoppel, which principle is itself subject to considerations of equity and public interest. (See Sales Tax Officer v. Shree Durga Oil Mills ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case. The doctrine of promissory estoppel can only apply in those cases where the person, who claims that the State is estopped from withdrawing a benefit/concession granted to him, has to plead and prove that he acted on the promise held out to him and changed his position to his disadvantage which has given rise to equities in his favour and, therefore, the State is estopped from withdrawing the concessions. In the present petitions, when the units were set up the Notification of 1990 was in force. It only granted exemption of tax up to March 31, 1995. There was no promise held out to the petitioners that they would be given any benefit after 1995. Therefore, they set up the industries prior to March 31, 1995 knowing fully well th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
