9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (1) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clear representation by the State Government providing for exemption from payment of sales tax for a period of five years as per terms and conditions contained in Government Notification No. 8244 dated 30th September, 1982 and that its total investment in the project is Rs. 3,09,000 in respect of land, building, plant and machinery. Annexure 1 to the writ petition is a copy of the certificate dated 2nd April, 1984 granted by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Agra, that the investment of the petitioner is Rs. 3,09,005.22. As the petitioner fulfilled all the requirements for the grant of eligibility certificate for exemption from payment of sales tax under section 4-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Joint Director of Industries, respondent No. 2, granted the eligibility certificate on 30th April, 1984, annexure 2, and exemption was granted for a period of five years with effect from 12th March, 1984. Subsequently, an objection having been raised, information was sought for from the petitioner as to its investment in the new unit. In this context respondent No. 2 submitted a report on 7th March, 1987, annexure 3, to the Direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication No. 6468 dated 27th August, 1984, a condition was introduced for the first time that in the case of new units in the district of Agra with capital investment not exceeding Rs. 3 lacs, the period of exemption shall be three years from the date of starting production. It is submitted that as the petitioner had set up its new industry on the basis of the representation made by the State Government under the earlier notification, the State Government was estopped from withdrawing the said exemption to the detriment of the petitioner by a subsequent notification. In support of this contention reliance is placed on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in [1987] 65 STC 1; AIR 1987 SC 590 (Pournami Oil Mills v. State of Kerala), wherein similar withdrawal of exemption under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was under consideration. The Supreme Court held as follows: "5. It may be possible to contend with plausibility that in the absence of an enabling provision in the statute the State Government would not have the power to give up a part of the tax due to the State and there can be no estoppel against statute. But that question does not arise here because we have section 10 e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 8.. It is not disputed that the first order, namely, the one dated April 11, 1979, gave more of tax exemption than the second one. The second notification withdrew the exemption relating to purchase tax and confined the exemption from sales tax to the limit specified in the proviso of the notification. All parties before us who in response to the order of April 11, 1979, set up their industries prior to October 21, 1980 within the State of Kerala would thus be entitled to the exemption extended and/or promised under that order. Such exemption would continue for the full period of five years from the date they started production. New industries set. up after October 21, 1980 obviously would not be entitled to that benefit as they had notice of the curtailment in the exemption before they came to set up their industries." As pointed out in the aforesaid case, while the first notification dated 11th April, 1979, under section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, gave more of tax exemption, the second notification dated 21st October, 1980 withdrew the exemption relating to purchase tax and confined the exemption from sales tax to the limit specified in the proviso to the secon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itimately raise a grievance that the exemption could not be withdrawn, except by means of legislation, having regard to the fact that promissory estoppel cannot be claimed against a statute. In the present case the appellants had not raised the plea of promissory estoppel before the High Court. This is understandable because the principle of promissory estoppel had not found crystallised acceptance by courts of law when the special civil application came to be heard by the High Court in the year 1972. Be that as it may, we find that the appellants have not made out any case of promissory estoppel either on the basis of the averments made in their petition or with reference to the facts which have emerged from the affidavits filed in the case. In order to claim the benefit of promissory estoppel the appellants must establish: (i) that a representation was made to grant the exemption for a particular period to a new industry established in view of the representation held out by the State Government; and (ii) that the appellants had established the new industry acting upon the representation made by the State Government." On examining the facts of the case the Supreme Court fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner's investment was less than Rs. 3 lacs. It appears there is no basis for this finding. The petitioner has filed the receipt dated 9th March, 1984, annexure R.A. 5, issued by the suppliers of the motors to the petitioner indicating that they had already received payment by 9th March, 1984 for the motors which were to be delivered to the petitioner on 10th March, 1984. This receipt makes it clear and in the counter filed by respondent No. 2 it has been admitted that payment for the motors was made by the petitioner by a bank draft dated 8th March, 1984. The receipt shows that the payment was received by the suppliers by 9th March, 1984. Therefore, it must be held that even by 9th March, 1984, the petitioner's investment was more than Rs. 3 lacs. For the reasons stated above the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 30th May/1st June, 1987 passed by the Joint Director of Industries, Agra Region, Agra, annexure 4, is hereby quashed and proceedings, if any, pursuant to the aforesaid order pending before the Assistant Commissioner, Assessment, Sales Tax VI, Agra, respondent No. 3, are also quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to exemption from payment of sales t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
