9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 729 - SC - Indian LawsRejection of application for extension of time under Clause 10 of New Package Scheme of Incentives for Tourism Projects, 1995-2000 - To make available all fiscal and non fiscal incentives, reliefs and concessions enjoyed by industries to Tourism - Principles of Promissory Estoppel - Record indicates that the progress of the project of the appellants was greatly hampered as a result of major earth quake in the State on 26.01.2001 and large scale communal riots in the State in February 2002 - Held that - Reading of the Scheme shows that to be eligible for the incentives under the Scheme, a new project ought to have obtained registration after 1.8.1995 and taken initial effective steps under Clause 4.7(a) which inter alia included effective possession of land free from all encumbrances and submission of Project Report. It is only thereafter that an intending unit could apply and be given provisional registration under Clause 10(a). Said clause indicates that such provisional registration in the first instance would be up to two years. If the unit was not in a position to start commercial operation during this initial validity period of two years, it would be entitled to apply with progress report to the State Level Committee for extension, which could be granted up to six months at a time or a total period of two years after examining the difficulties experienced in implementing the project. This first level of extensions for a total period of two years could be granted by the State Level Committee and even if a unit was unable to go into operation after availing such extensions, it could still apply to the Government for further extension. Clauses 8 and 8.1 dealt with incentives and period of eligibility which would go up to ten years after a unit was found to be fully eligible. These clauses clearly show that such stages or eventualities would survive even after the expiry of period of the operation of the Scheme. The reading of the Scheme further shows that no fresh application and TRCs could be granted after the period of operation but those who had crossed the threshold and were given TRC, could have the full benefit of the stages contemplated in Section 10. In our considered view, it would be incorrect to say that all the clauses including Clause 10 would cease to operate after the period of operation had come to an end. It being the clear intent that such stages and eventualities ought to survive even after the expiry of the Scheme, we reject the submission advanced on behalf of the State. The law on the subject of Promissory Estoppel was recapitulated and succinctly dealt with by this Court in State of Punjab Vs. Nestle India Ltd. 2004 (5) TMI 65 - SUPREME Court . It found the foundation of the doctrine laid in the decision in Collector of Bombay Vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay 1951 (10) TMI 20 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , the principle built upon in Union of India Vs. Anglo Afghan Agencies 1967 (11) TMI 108 - SUPREME COURT and the superstructure of the doctrine, with its pre-conditions, strengths and limitations outlined in the decision in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of UP 1978 (12) TMI 45 - SUPREME Court . This Court then dealt with the discordant note in Jit Ram Vs. State of Haryana 1980 (4) TMI 303 - SUPREME COURT and how that was firmly disapproved in Union of India Vs. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. 1985 (9) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA by a bench of three judges. Coming to the facts of the present case, we find that the Scheme definitely promised incentives in the form of Tax holiday of 5-10 years in respect of exemptions from Sales Tax, Turnover Tax, Electricity Duty, Luxury Tax and Entertainment Tax upto 100 per cent of capital investment if a new unit was registered after 1.8.1995 and appropriate investment in fixed capital assets was made. It also promised an initial period of two years for going operational in the first instance, extendable by further period of two years subject to satisfactory progress to be found by the State Level Committee. Even thereafter, the Unit could still approach the State Government for further extension. This was part of the core of the Scheme, which invited investment in tourism units promising tax holiday as stated above. Based on such representation, various units including that of the appellants having come forward and altered their position, the State Government would certainly be bound by the principles of Promissory Estoppel. The State Government was thus estopped from going back on the promise so made in the Scheme and could not have curtailed the period and the opportunity specifically made available within which the project could be completed so as to avail the benefits under the Scheme. We find nothing in the present case on the basis of which there could possibly be room to say that it would be inequitable to hold the State Government to its promise. Out of 108 TRCs issued under the Scheme, the burden that the Government was well aware and thought that it could comfortably bear, only 19 or 20 units have been established and are functional. In any case, the impact of incentives so offered under the Scheme and the consequential burden must have been weighed carefully when such promise was made and the Scheme was formed. Furthermore, the Scheme as framed on 20.12.1995 formed the basis of a statutory notification under Section 29 of Act 16 of 1977 and as such the core components of the Scheme had acquired a statutory status. By virtue of said Section 29, the notification dated 14.2.1997 was required to be laid for not less than 30 days before the State Legislature. If the State Government was desirous of amending, varying or rescinding said notification dated 14.2.1997, the subsequent G.R. dated 28.06.2000 ought to have been translated in a statutory notification under Section 29 of the Act 16 of 1977. In the absence of such steps having been undertaken, G.R. dated 28.06.2000 could not in any way detract from or dilute the effect of the Scheme which had acquired statutory status. We therefore hold that the appellants were entitled to have full benefit and advantage of Clause 10 of the Scheme and the curtailment of the period and opportunity available under said Clause 10 of the Scheme by subsequent G.R. dated 28.06.2000 was bad and ineffective. The record indicates that the progress of the project of the appellants was greatly hampered as a result of major earth quake in the State on 26.01.2001 and large scale communal riots in the State in February 2002. The State Level Committee was satisfied that the commencement and continuation of the project was so affected as a result of these major difficulties and had granted initial extension of six months but the appellants had benefit of only few days out of such extension. The subsequent request for further extension which was backed with relevant certificate from the Chartered Accountant certainly persuaded the State Level Committee to find that the facts justified grant of further extension but it felt it had lost the power to grant such extension because of G. R. dated 28.06.2000. In the light of the view that we have taken, the State Level Committee was still competent to consider the request for grant of extension. - Decided in favour of appellants.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the rejection of the application for extension of time under Clause 10 of the New Package Scheme of Incentives for Tourism Projects, 1995-2000. 2. Applicability of the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel against the State Government. 3. Impact of subsequent Government Resolutions on the original Scheme and its statutory status. 4. Assessment of the appellants' entitlement to incentives and benefits under the Scheme. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Rejection of the Application for Extension of Time: The appellants challenged the rejection of their application for an extension of time under Clause 10 of the New Package Scheme of Incentives for Tourism Projects, 1995-2000. The Scheme, announced on 20.12.1995, aimed to boost tourism by offering fiscal and non-fiscal incentives to tourism projects. Clause 10 outlined the procedure for registration and extension of time for tourism units. The appellants, having taken effective steps and obtained Temporary Registration Certification (TRC) on 17.09.1999, faced delays due to an earthquake in 2001 and communal riots in 2002. Despite these setbacks, their application for extension was rejected on 20.07.2005, citing reasons such as sufficient time already given, undue burden on the State's Exchequer, and multiplicity of multiplexes. The High Court upheld this rejection, stating the operative period of the Scheme ended on 30.11.2000, and no further extensions were permissible. 2. Applicability of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel: The appellants argued that the incentives and procedures under the Scheme constituted a promise by the State Government, based on which they made significant investments. The doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, as outlined in cases like Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of UP and Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., binds the government to its promises if the promisee has acted upon them. The Supreme Court held that the Scheme's promise of incentives and extension opportunities formed the core of the promise, and the State Government was estopped from reneging on this promise. The Court found no basis to argue that it would be inequitable to hold the State Government to its promise, especially since only a fraction of the projects initially envisaged under the Scheme were completed. 3. Impact of Subsequent Government Resolutions: The appellants contended that the Government Resolution (GR) dated 28.06.2000, which sought to limit extensions, could not override the original Scheme, which had acquired statutory status through a notification under Section 29 of the Gujarat Entertainment Tax Act, 1977. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the GR dated 28.06.2000 did not have the statutory force to detract from or dilute the original Scheme. The Court emphasized that the Scheme's core components, including Clause 10, survived beyond the Scheme's operative period, allowing for extensions based on individual circumstances. 4. Assessment of Entitlement to Incentives and Benefits: Given the significant disruptions caused by the earthquake and communal riots, the Supreme Court directed the State Level Committee to reassess the appellants' request for extension under Clause 10 of the Scheme. The Court highlighted that the appellants had already commenced commercial operations and that their progress had been satisfactory. The State Level Committee was instructed to make this assessment within three months, and if found in favor of the appellants, they would be entitled to the incentives and benefits under the Scheme. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's decision and directing the State Level Committee to reassess the appellants' entitlement to an extension under Clause 10 of the Scheme. The Court upheld the applicability of the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel and affirmed the statutory status of the original Scheme, ensuring that the appellants could avail the promised incentives and benefits. All connected appeals raising identical issues were similarly allowed.
|
