9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Notification No. 39/89-C.E.(N.T.), dated 25-8-1989. 2. Right to utilize credit earned under previous notifications. 3. Applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. 4. Applicability of Section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act. 5. Maintainability of the writ petition. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Notification No. 39/89-C.E.(N.T.), dated 25-8-1989: The petitioner challenged the Notification No. 39/89-C.E.(N.T.), dated 25-8-1989, which rescinded earlier Notifications 27/87 and 192/87, thereby withdrawing the scheme of money credit in respect of minor oils used in the manufacture of Vanaspati and soaps. The petitioner argued that the credit earned under the earlier notifications could not be abrogated by the subsequent notification. The court concluded that the Government of India could not be precluded from prospectively exercising its statutory powers to grant or withdraw exemptions. 2. Right to Utilize Credit Earned Under Previous Notifications: The petitioner claimed that the credit earned and accumulated under the earlier notifications was a right and benefit accrued to them, which could not be taken away by the subsequent notification. The court agreed with this contention, stating that the mere rescinding of the earlier notification did not have the effect of abrogating the rights already earned by the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner had a right to utilize the credit earned in accordance with the scheme when it was in force and prior to 25-8-1989. 3. Applicability of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel: The petitioner argued that the principle of promissory estoppel should prevent the respondents from denying the utilization of the credit already earned. The court referred to various decisions, including those of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Gujarat High Court, which applied the principle of promissory estoppel in similar circumstances. The court held that the principle of promissory estoppel applied, allowing the petitioner to utilize the credit already earned. 4. Applicability of Section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act: The petitioner contended that the rights accrued under the earlier notifications were protected by Section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act, which states that the repeal of an act or regulation does not affect any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired or accrued under such act or regulation. The respondents disputed this applicability, arguing that the General Clauses Act applied only when an act or rules were repealed, not in the case of notifications granting or withdrawing schemes. The court sided with the petitioner, stating that the continued existence of Rule 57N, which regulated the right to utilize the credit already earned, supported the claim that the rescinding notification did not abrogate the rights accrued. 5. Maintainability of the Writ Petition: The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable, as the grant or withdrawal of a scheme was a policy decision of the Government, which could not be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court rejected this argument, stating that the issue was not about the Government's authority to rescind a scheme but whether the rescinding notification deprived the petitioner of the credit earned during the period when the scheme was in force. The court held that the writ petition was maintainable and that the petitioner had a right to seek judicial intervention. Conclusion: The court concluded that the petitioner had a right to utilize the credit earned under the earlier notifications before 25-8-1989. The writ petition was ordered in favor of the petitioner, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to avail of the credit legitimately earned in terms of the relevant notifications prior to 25-8-1989. The prayer for quashing the Notification No. 39/89-C.E.(N.T.), dated 25-8-1989, was not granted, but a writ of mandamus was issued to protect the petitioner's accrued rights.
|
