1997 (1) TMI 491 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of notifications and orders regarding sales tax exemption for stone crushers.
2. Application of section 11 of the Haryana Regulation and Control of Crusher Act, 1991.
3. Principle of promissory estoppel.
4. Principle of implied repeal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notifications and Orders Regarding Sales Tax Exemption for Stone Crushers:

The judgment addresses the challenge against the notifications (annexures P-4, P-6) and the order (annexure P-7) that denied sales tax exemption to stone crushers. The notifications modified the negative list to include "stone crushers," thereby disentitling them from incentives. The court examined whether these notifications and the subsequent order rejecting the petitioner's application for sales tax exemption were valid.

2. Application of Section 11 of the Haryana Regulation and Control of Crusher Act, 1991:

Section 11 of the Act of 1991 provides incentives to owners who install crushers in the crusher zone and obtain a license, including "exemption/deferment of sales tax." The petitioner argued that based on this section, they were entitled to sales tax exemption. However, the court noted that such incentives were subject to various schemes of the Industries Department, which did not explicitly exempt licensed stone crushers from sales tax. The court found no existing scheme that granted such an exemption, and the policy in place included stone crushers in the negative list, disqualifying them from sales tax benefits.

3. Principle of Promissory Estoppel:

The petitioner contended that the respondents were estopped from denying the sales tax exemption because the petitioner had relied on the incentives promised under section 11 of the Act of 1991 and had invested significantly in setting up the stone crusher. The court, however, did not find this principle applicable as there was no clear and specific exemption granted to licensed stone crushers in the relevant policies or notifications.

4. Principle of Implied Repeal:

The petitioner argued that section 11 of the Act of 1991 impliedly repealed the provisions of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act and the rules that included stone crushers in the negative list. The court rejected this argument, stating that section 11 did not provide a complete tax holiday and was subject to the incentive schemes of the Industries Department. The court emphasized that exemptions are typically limited in duration and subject to policy changes.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the notifications and the order rejecting the petitioner's application for sales tax exemption were valid. It held that the petitioner was not entitled to sales tax exemption under section 11 of the Act of 1991, as there was no specific scheme or policy granting such an exemption to licensed stone crushers. The principles of promissory estoppel and implied repeal were found inapplicable. Consequently, all the petitions were dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs.