TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as issued. The relevant thing is whether the respondent could claim exemption of entry tax on the principle of "promissory estoppel or not". The respondent has set up its own industrial unit in pursuance of the promise given by the State Government under the 2001-06 Policy. It had already got exemption from payment of electricity duty as envisaged under the 2001-06 Policy. The Government has come out with the notification granting exemption in entry tax but not within the time stipulated under the 2001-06 Policy. The Government was negligent and there was slackness on its part - Once the Government had given a promise to give exemption of the entry tax in order to give thrust to industrial growth and in fact such benefit from exemption of entry tax for seven years is being given to all similarly situate industries, then there is no justification to limit it only for industrial unit starting production after November 1, 2004 especially when such notification ought to have been issued within 60 days of issuance of the 2001-06 Policy namely in 2002 itself. - Decided against Revenue. - Writ Appeal No. 264 of 2011, W. P. (T) No. 6057 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 8-8-2014 - YATINDRA SINGH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he year 2004-05 was also made on December 26, 2007. 9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid actions, the respondent filed Writ Petition (T)-6057 of 2008 for claiming exemption in entry tax as well as quashing of entry tax assessment for the year 2004-05. 10. The writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed by the single judge on March 23, 2011 on the ground of promissory estoppel holding that the respondent is entitled to exemption from payment of entry tax and assessment was quashed. Hence, the present writ appeal by the State Government and its officials. The decision 11. We have heard counsel for the parties. 2001-06 Policy 12. It is not disputed between the parties that:- The 2001-06 Policy was issued by the State Government after approval by the Cabinet and was binding upon all the Departments and its officers; The 2001-06 Policy was never withdrawn and some benefits to the newly set up industrial units including the one by the respondent were given. 13. Clause 1 of the 2001-06 Policy is tided as executive summary . It explains the strategies identified by the State for industrial development. It envisages four broad strategies for development of the S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing production after November 1, 2004. The industrial unit of the respondent started its production on June 16, 2004. The question should this benefit be extended to the respondent or not. Benefit should be extended 22. The counsel for the State submits that:- The notification was not issued under the 2001-06 Policy, but was issued under another policy issued for the years 2004-09 (the 2004-09 Policy), under which the benefit could be given provided the commercial production started on or after November 1, 2004; In the case of the respondent, the commercial production started on June 16, 2004, namely prior to the date fixed in the notification dated September 1, 2005, and as such no exemption in entry tax can be given to it; The benefit under the 2001-06 Policy can only be given provided there was a notification by the concerned Department and as no notification was issued under the 2001-06 Policy, no benefit can be given. The 2001-06 Policy 23. The respondent commenced its commercial production on June 16, 2004. Had it commenced production after November 1, 2004, then it would have got exemption irrespective of the fact whether it was set up in pursuance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the limitations to which all equitable rights and obligations are subject. [3Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1979] 44 STC 42 (SC); AIR 1979 SC 621 (622); [1979] 2 SCC 409.]On the same page, Basu's Shorter Constitution of India explains them as follows:- (a) It would be open for the Government or public authority to show that the officer or agent who made the representation acted beyond the scope of his authority and the person who dealt with him. Is supposed to have notice of the limitations of the authority of a public servant with whom he is dealing [Jit Ram Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana AIR 1980 SC 1285 (1305); [1981] 1 SCC 11.]. (b) It would be open to the public authority to prove that there was special considerations which necessitated his not being able to comply with his obligations under the doctrine, in the public interest [Jit Ram Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana AIR 1980 SC 1285 (1305); [1981] 1 SCC 11]. (c) The doctrine cannot be invoked to prevent the Government from acting in discharge of its duty under the law [Jit Ram Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana AIR 1980 SC 1285 (1305); [1981] 1 SCC 11] . (d) The doctrine canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
