TMI Blog1988 (5) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions could be granted and the order of June 30, 1969, was ultra vires and bad in law? Held that:- In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that any such misuse was being made or undue advantage taken of the said concessions by the newly established industries. The Government had, therefore, failed to establish the requisite ground or the basis on which it might be allowed to go back on its promise. The first submission of learned counsel for the appellants must, therefore, fail. There is no substance whatever in the contention that the State Government had no authority to provide for the grant of refunds. Again, the mere fact that the order of June 30, 1969, did not specify the power under which it was issued will make ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... " Consequently, the Governor of Mysore is pleased to sanction the following incentives and concessions to the entrepreneurs for starting new industries in Mysore State : (1) Sales Tax-A cash refund will be allowed on all sales tax paid by a new industry on raw materials purchased by it for the first 5 (five) years from the date the industry goes into production, eligibility to the concessions being determined on the basis of a certificate to be issued by the Department of Industries and Commerce ............ .. " By an order dated August 11, 1975, a procedure was prescribed for obtaining the concessions given under the orders referred to earlier. On January 12, 1977, the Government of Karnataka issued another order which recited that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asis of which they had acted by starting new industries requiring investment of considerable funds and the Government was not entitled to go back on that promise as it had sought to do by the order dated January 12, 1977. A learned single judge of the Karnataka High Court, before whom these writ petitions were filed, upheld the aforesaid contention of the petitioners urged before him relying mainly on the rulings of this court in Union of India v. Indo Afghan Agencies, AIR 1968 SC 718, Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Limited v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council, AIR 1971 SC 1021 and the ruling in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Company Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1979] 118 ITR 326(SC). In the concluding portion of his judgment, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any misuse was made of these concessions or undue advantage taken of the same. It is true that the preamble to the order dated January 12, 1977, does recite that the concessions given by the earlier order had given room for many types of misuse but such a recital by itself cannot establish that the concessions were, in fact, misused. if that were so, it was the duty of the Government and the concerned authorities to file a counter-affidavit and place the relevant facts establishing the misuse before the court' This they have totally failed to do. It is well settled that if the Government wants to resile from a promise or an assurance given by it on the ground that undue advantage was being taken or misuse was being made of the concessions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh in a more limited manner and that is not even the case of the appellants. Although, we are of the view that the contention- set out in the, foregoing paragraph is not open to the appellants at all, we propose to examine the merits of that contention because, in our view, even on merits the contention raised must be rejected. The ground on which it was submitted that the said order of June 30, 1969, was invalid is that there is no provision under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (referred to hereinafter as " the said Act "), under which any refund could be granted. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the only relevant provision, in this connection, is section 8A of the said Act and that section empowers the State Gover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... June 30, 1969, did not specify the power under which it was issued will make no difference because such power is clearly there in section 8A and where the source of power under which it is issued is not stated in an order but can be found on the examination of the relevant Act, the exercise of the power must be attributed to that source. The second submission of learned counsel for the appellants must, also, therefore, be rejected. Although at one stage a faint doubt was raised by learned counsel for the appellants as to whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel could be regarded as good law now, he conceded that the doctrine must be regarded as good law in view of the recent decision of this court in State of Bihar v. Usha Martin Indus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
