9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. 2. Validity of the State government's order and demand notices. 3. Whether the respondent acted to its prejudice based on the State's assurance. 4. Legal implications under the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1949. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel: The respondent, Orient Paper Mills Ltd., invoked the doctrine of promissory estoppel to claim an exemption from electricity duty based on an assurance dated 1/08/1961 by the State of Madhya Pradesh. The assurance stated, "Where power has to be generated by industrialists themselves, exemption from electricity duty shall be granted for a period of five years from the date the plant goes into production. The concession shall be applicable only to new generating sets installed during the Third Plan period." The High Court, after considering the voluminous documentary evidence, concluded that the respondent was entitled to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The Court stated, "To conclude, we are of opinion that the petitioner is entitled to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel in order to claim exemption from payment of electricity duty for a period of five years from 16/02/1965 to 15/02/1970 in terms of the assurance of the State government, dated 1/08/1961." 2. Validity of the State Government's Order and Demand Notices: The High Court quashed the State government's order dated 15/03/1973, which declined to grant the respondent exemption from payment of electricity duty for the period from 16/02/1965 to 15/02/1970, as well as the demand notices dated 20/03/1973 and 3/04/1973. The Court found that the respondent's case fell squarely within the scope of the assurance given by the State government. The judgment stated, "We can certainly quash the order of the State government, dated 15/03/1973 as also the demand notices, dated 20/03/1973 (petitioners Annx. 48) and dated 3/04/1973 (petitioners Annx. 50) and leave the matter at that." 3. Whether the Respondent Acted to Its Prejudice Based on the State's Assurance: The State argued that the respondent had not acted to its prejudice based on the assurance dated 1/08/1961 and had been planning to set up a generating plant independently. However, the High Court rejected this argument, stating, "The petitioners action in making a final decision to set up its own power plant can be directly connected with the State governments assurance dated August I, 1961." The Court found that the respondent's indecision ended and it became decisive on the announcement of the assurance. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that it was a possible view based on the material placed before the High Court. 4. Legal Implications Under the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1949: The appellant contended that the doctrine of promissory estoppel could not compel the State government to issue a notification under S. 3-A (vii) and S. 3-B of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1949, exempting the respondent from payment of electricity duty. The High Court addressed this by stating that without commanding the State government to issue such a notification, it granted relief to the respondent. The Court concluded, "No provision of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1949 or any other law can be said to have been transgressed." Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment that the respondent was entitled to the exemption based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court's factual findings and legal conclusions. The appeal was dismissed with no costs.
|
