2009 (8) TMI 688 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Writ petition was filed without reply to even the show-cause notice. In the circumstances we could have dismissed these civil appeals only on the ground of failure to exhaust statutory remedy but for the fact that huge investments involving the large number of industries are in issue.

Summary

Issues:
Withdrawal of original writ petitions, implications of impugned judgments, consideration of trade representations, invocation of doctrine of promissory estoppel, dismissal of civil appeals.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard both sides extensively regarding the withdrawal of the original writ petitions filed by the appellant(s) in the Karnataka High Court. The appellant(s) agreed to unconditionally withdraw the writ petitions, leading to the conclusion that the impugned judgments of the Division Bench and the learned single judge would no longer be valid. However, the withdrawal does not prevent the trade from approaching the Government with a proper representation to explain the impact of the impugned notification and the resulting loss of benefits. The Court emphasized the importance of considering such representations, especially in the context of investments in the States and relevant industrial policies.

The Court highlighted the significance of the representation that the trade may submit within a specified period of six weeks. It underscored the need for the Government to evaluate these representations in light of the Industrial Policy and relevant notifications, providing the trade with the option to choose between old and new policies. The judgment emphasized the importance of factual foundation when invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel. It noted that the High Court should not have intervened in the matter, especially when the writ petition was filed without responding to the show-cause notice. Despite the possibility of dismissing the civil appeals due to the failure to exhaust statutory remedies, the Court considered the substantial investments at stake in numerous industries.

Ultimately, the civil appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with no costs imposed. The Court's decision was based on the withdrawal of the original writ petitions and the lack of factual foundation for invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The judgment highlighted the need for proper legal procedures and factual data in such cases, especially when significant investments and industries are involved.