9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (2) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nit in September, 1980, in a backward area. For that purpose, it had obtained a plot in the industrial estate of the G.I.D.C. at Umbergaon and took possession thereof on April 21, 1981. It also placed orders for purchase of machinery and by December 22, 1982, it had invested Rs. 20,50,000, and it started commercial production on December 22, 1982. On May 13, 1983, it applied to the Deputy Commissioner of Industries, respondent No. 2, for an eligibility certificate. On September 19, 1983, the 2nd respondent granted such a certificate, sanctioning payment of cash subsidy of Rs. 3,07,500, but did not grant the eligibility certificate necessary for obtaining the benefit of sales tax deferment. Respondent No. 2 then obtained from the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner. This question arises, because on January 7, 1982, the Government passed another resolution and made some more industries ineligible for any of the incentives declared by the Government in that behalf by the relevant Government resolutions and circulars. In the list contained in that resolution, "the industry of wire drawing of steel and items requiring wire rods as essential raw materials" was made ineligible for incentives contained in the relevant Government resolutions and circulars. The stand taken by the respondents is that as the petitioner's industry became ineligible for any incentive after January 7, 1982, whatever investment in fixed assets made by the petitioner thereafter was not to be considered for the purpose o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1979] 44 STC 42; AIR 1979 SC 621, is a principle evolved by equity to avoid injustice. The true principle is that, where one party has, by his words or conduct, made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise, which is intended to create legal relations or effect a legal relationship to arise in future, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party, to whom the promise is made and it is, in fact, so acted upon by the other party, the promise would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go back upon it, if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so having regard to the dealings, which have taken place between the par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as subsequently excluded from the benefits of the scheme. Such exclusion would apply to the new industrial units set up thereafter and it would be inequitable to deprive the new industrial unit of the benefits declared under the scheme on the ground of such subsequent exclusion. There is no dispute in this case that, relying upon the scheme, the petitioner had decided to set up a new industry in a backward area in September, 1980 and had purchased a piece of land, constructed a building over it and had obtained some machinery also before January 7, 1982. Thus, the petitioner had altered its position, relying upon the promise made by the Government, by making substantial investment, though it had started commercial production after that date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
