TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssional tariff, the foremost being that the industries in question had earned no profits so as to attract the withdrawal/disabling condition introduced in the Amended Schedule. In this regard it is pointed out that Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd. had incurred losses as a whole though its caustic soda unit, to whom concessional tariff was promised and granted, may have earned a profit. The concessional tariff having been granted to the industry by the Act in question, though in respect of its caustic soda unit, the assessment of profit/loss made by the industry as a whole and not by the unit alone, cannot be said to be an arbitrary or irrational basis for determining the application of the impugned G.O. to the appellants in C.A.Nos.9748 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J. 1. These cases have been referred by a two-Judges Bench of this Court on the question as to whether, in the facts of the case, the principles of promissory estoppel can be invoked in favour of the appellants so as to entitle them to the benefit of concessional tariff of electricity. 2. Civil Appeal No.9748 of 2003 and Civil Appeal No. 9750 of 2003 have identical facts. In fact the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 9750 of 2003 is the successor-in-interest of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 9748 of 2003. The facts in the third appeal i.e. Civil Appeal No. 9749 of 2003 are also largely similar. 3. The appellant in C.A.No.9748 of 2003 M/s. Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd. had proposed to set up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may be prescribed. The schedule to the Act, inter alia, provides that in the case of new industries, concessional tariff would be charged after commencement of the production in the following manner For the first Three years ..... 66-2/3 Per cent of the High Tension rates under 1(A) (B) as the case may be. For the fourth year ...... 80 Per cent of the High Tension rates under 1(A), 1(B) as the case may be. For the firth year ...... 90 Per cent of the High Tension rates under 1(A) (B) as the case may be. For the sixth year ...... Full Tariff. 6. In exercise of the power conferred by Section 4 of the Act, the Schedule thereto was amended by G.O. No.861 dated 30.4.1982. While maintaining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court leading to the appeals before us. 9. We have heard Shri Pravin H. Parekh and Ms. Nalini Chidambaram, learned senior counsels for the appellants in C.A. No 9748 of 2003 and C.A. No 9750 of 2003 and Shri Krishnamurthi Swami, learned counsel for the appellant in C.A.No.9749 of 2003. We have also heard Shri Subramonium Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents. 10. The question referred to this bench, as noticed, is whether the State would be estopped from altering/modifying the benefit of concessional tariff by means of the impugned G.O No. 861 dated 30.4.1982 on the principle of promissory estoppel. In fact, insofar as the caustic soda unit of M/s. Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd., subsequently taken over by Southern Petro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00 reducing hill development rebate to 0% as there can be no estoppel against the statute. 12. In Para 47 of the report this Court has considered and had thought it appropriate to extract the views expressed in an earlier decision i.e. State of Rajasthan vs. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. 2004 (7) SCC 673 : 25. An exemption is by definition a freedom from an obligation which the exemptee is otherwise liable to discharge. It is a privilege granting an advantage not available to others. An exemption granted under a statutory provision in a fiscal statute has been held to be a concession granted by the State Government so that the beneficiaries of such concession are not required to pay the tax or duty they are otherwise liable to pay unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be taken away or withdrawn in exercise of the very power under which the exemption was granted. 14. In the light of the above discussion and the earlier views of this Court, as set out above, it has to be held that the principle of promissory estoppel would have no application to the case of the appellants so as to entitle the applellants any right to the continuation of the concessional tariff earlier granted. 15. The appellants have urged certain other issues to persuade the court to strike down the impugned action of the respondents in withdrawing the concessional tariff, the foremost being that the industries in question had earned no profits so as to attract the withdrawal/disabling condition introduced in the Amended Schedul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
