1995 (3) TMI 454 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the exemption period granted by the Chairman, NOIDA.
2. Rejection of the review application by the Area Development Officer, NOIDA.
3. Applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
4. Interpretation of the notification dated August 27, 1984.
5. Effect of subsequent amendments to Section 4-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Exemption Period Granted by the Chairman, NOIDA:
The petitioner challenged the decision of the Chairman, NOIDA, who granted an exemption from payment of sales tax for four years instead of six years. The petitioner argued that they had fulfilled all the requirements for the grant of eligibility/exemption certificate under Section 4-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The Chairman's decision was based on the fact that the petitioner's investment was below three lacs at the start of production. The court found that the notification dated August 27, 1984, did not specify the point of time when the investment should be three lacs or more. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to a six-year exemption as the notification did not mandate the investment to be three lacs at the start of production.

2. Rejection of the Review Application by the Area Development Officer, NOIDA:
The Area Development Officer rejected the petitioner's review application, stating that the investment was below three lacs at the start of production. The court noted that the notification dated August 27, 1984, did not provide the time frame for the investment to be three lacs. The petitioner had increased their investment to over three lacs shortly after starting production. The court held that the rejection of the review application was unjustified.

3. Applicability of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel:
The petitioner argued that they had established their unit based on the Government Order dated September 30, 1982, which promised a six-year exemption. The court referred to the doctrine of promissory estoppel, which prevents the government from going back on its promise if the promisee has acted upon it. The court cited several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decisions in Pournami Oil Mills v. State of Kerala and Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, to support the application of promissory estoppel. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to the exemption based on the government's earlier promise.

4. Interpretation of the Notification Dated August 27, 1984:
The court examined the notification dated August 27, 1984, which introduced different periods of exemption based on investment levels. The court found that the notification did not specify the exact time when the investment should be three lacs or more. The court interpreted the notification liberally, considering the purpose of promoting industrial growth. The court held that the petitioner's subsequent increase in investment to over three lacs entitled them to a six-year exemption.

5. Effect of Subsequent Amendments to Section 4-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act:
The court considered the amendments to Section 4-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, which introduced conditions for exemption. The court noted that the petitioner's unit was established before the amendments and the notification dated August 27, 1984. The court held that the amendments did not affect the petitioner's entitlement to a six-year exemption, as the conditions were not applicable to units established before the notification.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to a six-year exemption from payment of sales tax, starting from April 21, 1984. The court issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to modify the eligibility certificate to reflect the six-year exemption period and directed the Sales Tax Officer to pass a provisional assessment order accordingly. The writ petition was allowed.

← Previous Next →