TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 861X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing reasons for such inaction. 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. The petitioner has made out a case for issuing appropriate directions - 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 - petition disposed off. - WP ( C ) 222 OF 2016 - - - Dated:- 3-2-2020 - HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI And HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Saraf, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Pritam Baruah, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, Advocate JUDGMENT ( A. Kureshi, CJ ) 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to ₹ 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 It is further pointed out that in the said incentive scheme of 2007 was superseded by the fresh incentive scheme of 2012 which also was never operational ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... age 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. 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 ente ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (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 sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts 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 ₹ 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 recognizi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. 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. Motital Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh Ors., reported in (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 wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich 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 promis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Uni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
