9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Promissory Estoppel against Statutory Duty 2. Vested Rights and Government Orders 3. Interpretation of Government Order dated 30-7-1968 4. Compliance with Section 149(2) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Promissory Estoppel against Statutory Duty: The Corporation argued that the High Court erred in giving effect to the doctrine of promissory estoppel, asserting that there could be no estoppel against a statute. The Government order deleting rule 5(8) was of a statutory character and could not estop the Corporation from realizing octroi duty, which it was mandated to collect under the law. The respondents contended that the Corporation was bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel and must either refuse to realize octroi duty or refund it to uphold its commitment. 2. Vested Rights and Government Orders: The respondents argued that the Government order could not take away their vested rights. The High Court had accepted this argument, quashing the Government order and restraining the Corporation from collecting octroi duty. The Corporation contended that the Government order must be deemed to have been passed on its recommendation, thus not infringing on vested rights. 3. Interpretation of Government Order dated 30-7-1968: The Court emphasized that it was unnecessary to delve into promissory estoppel, focusing instead on interpreting the Government order against its historical and contextual backdrop. The Corporation's resolution dated 30-5-1968 recommended deleting rule 5(8) while ensuring that existing exemptions continued. The Government order, influenced by the Municipal Commissioner's letter, did not intend to deviate from this recommendation. The Court concluded that the Government order must be read to include the proviso that existing concessions would continue, thus preserving the respondents' exemptions from octroi duty. 4. Compliance with Section 149(2) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949: Section 149(2) allowed the Government to modify the Corporation's recommendations without increasing the levy rate or extent. The Court noted that if the Government intended to unconditionally withdraw the exemption, it would have referred the matter back to the Corporation. The Government's failure to do so implied that the deletion of rule 5(8) included the proviso for continuing existing exemptions. The Court held that interpreting the Government order to include this proviso was consistent with the principle that amendments affecting legal rights should be presumed prospective unless explicitly stated otherwise. Conclusion: The Court interpreted the Government order dated 30-7-1968 to include the proviso that existing concessions would continue, thus upholding the respondents' exemptions from octroi duty. The High Court's order quashing the Government order was set aside, and the appeals were disposed of without costs. The Court remitted a related appeal to the High Court for re-admission and disposal according to law, applying the same interpretation of the Government order if the appellant could prove its applicability.
|
