Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1995 (8) TMI 273

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y or on behalf of the Government and the appellant had acted upon that promise to its detriment and thereafter the changes effected by the notification dated July 17, 1971, have caused great prejudice to the appellant. - Civil Appeal No. 951 of 1976, 1011 of 1977, - - - Dated:- 23-8-1995 - AHMADI A.M., SUHAS CHANDRA SEN AND PARIPOORNAN K.S. JJ. B.K. Mehta, Senior Advocate (S.C. Patel, Advocate, with him), for the appellant in C.A. No. 951 of 1976. B.K. Mehta, Senior Advocate (Vimal Dave, Advocate, with him), for the appellant in C.A. No. 1011 of 1977. P.S. Poti, Senior Advocate (Ms. Hemantika Wahi and Ms. S. Hazarika, Advocates, with him), for the respondents in both the appeals. ------------------------------------ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es that in exercise of the powers conferred by section 86 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, the rules were being framed to amend the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970. Rule 42A was introduced in the Gujarat Sales Tax Rules, 1970, whereby on fulfilment of certain conditions, a new industry was granted drawback, set-off or refund of the whole or any part of the tax in respect of the purchases of raw materials, processing materials and machinery or packing materials used in manufacture of goods for sale. Certain conditions were laid down which had to be fulfilled before a new industry could avail of this benefit of the amended rule 42A. "New industry" was defined to mean and include an industry which has been commissioned at any time during the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the Government. It is not open to the Government now to withdraw the benefits of this notification by a subsequent notification issued on July 17, 1971. Since the appellant had changed his position to his detriment on the strength of the earlier assurance held out by the Government, the appellant is entitled to continue to enjoy the benefits given by notification dated November 11, 1970, for a period of five years from the date of commissioning of its plant. The Government was estopped from withdrawing the benefits by removing the appellant from the list of eligible industries by the subsequent notification dated July 17, 1971. Elaborate arguments were advanced as to the scope and effect of the doctrine of promissory estoppel and under .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , by which any assurance was held out to any industry. This was a usual Government notification relating to purchase and sales tax, granting reliefs to certain industries on fulfilment of the conditions laid down in the notification. Even otherwise, the notification dated November 11, 1970, grants exemption to a new industries which "has been commissioned on or after April 1, 1970, in the areas beyond 24 kilometres from the municipal limits of cities of Ahmedabad and Baroda and 16 kilometres from the municipal limits of Surat, Bhavnagar, Rajkot and Jamnagar". In other words, the Government wanted to encourage industries set up beyond the specified distance from the municipal limits of the aforesaid towns. This cannot be construed to mean .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... industrial unit at Junagadh at a certain point of time, the fiscal laws of the State must remain unaltered from that date. The appellant has not been able to show that some definite promise was made by or on behalf of the Government and the appellant had acted upon that promise to its detriment and thereafter the changes effected by the notification dated July 17, 1971, have caused great prejudice to the appellant. In the premises, it is not necessary to go into the question of applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel in the field of fiscal legislation. The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Civil Appeal No. 1011 of 1977: The facts of this case are similar to the facts in the case of Arvind Industr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates