2002 (10) TMI 752 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of G.O. Ms. No. 119 to cases of sales tax waiver.
2. Legality of the conditions imposed in the eligibility certificate.
3. Doctrine of promissory estoppel.
4. Role and authority of SIPCOT in issuing eligibility certificates.
5. Arguments regarding executive orders modifying statutory notifications.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of G.O. Ms. No. 119 to cases of sales tax waiver:
The petitioner contended that G.O. Ms. No. 119, which mandates the inclusion of base production volume and base sales turnover in the eligibility certificate, applies only to cases of sales tax deferral and not to waiver cases. The court, however, found that the language of G.O. Ms. No. 119 does not limit its application solely to deferral cases. It was intended to apply to all expansion cases, including those opting for a waiver. The policy decision recorded in paragraph 3(v) of G.O. Ms. No. 119 was meant to protect revenue in all expansion cases by preventing the diversion of concessions to pre-existing capacity.

2. Legality of the conditions imposed in the eligibility certificate:
The petitioner challenged sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 4 of the eligibility certificate, which limited the sales tax waiver benefit to the increased volume of production/sale over the base figures. The court upheld this condition, stating it was inherently reasonable and necessary to prevent the diversion of benefits intended for expanded capacity. The condition was deemed permissible under the scheme of waiver granted to the petitioner.

3. Doctrine of promissory estoppel:
The petitioner argued that the conditions imposed in the eligibility certificate were contrary to the principle of promissory estoppel, as established in previous Supreme Court rulings. However, the court found that the petitioner was estopped from raising this contention due to having executed an agreement incorporating the disputed conditions and subsequently requesting amendments that were granted by the government. The court emphasized that the doctrine of estoppel operated against the petitioner.

4. Role and authority of SIPCOT in issuing eligibility certificates:
The petitioner argued that SIPCOT's role in issuing eligibility certificates was merely administrative or clerical, and any conditions not specified in G.O. Ms. No. 500 were impermissible. The court rejected this argument, stating that G.O. Ms. No. 500 did not apply to the waiver scheme under G.O. Ms. Nos. 323 and 43. The eligibility certificates issued by SIPCOT, incorporating conditions from G.O. Ms. No. 119, were valid and enforceable.

5. Arguments regarding executive orders modifying statutory notifications:
The petitioner relied on Supreme Court decisions asserting that executive orders cannot modify statutory notifications. The court found these arguments inapplicable, as the conditions in the eligibility certificate were consistent with the statutory framework and government orders governing the waiver scheme.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that G.O. Ms. No. 119 applied to all expansion cases, including those opting for a waiver, and the conditions imposed in the eligibility certificate were valid and necessary to protect revenue. The petitioner was estopped from challenging these conditions due to prior acceptance and agreement.