9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 1017X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the backward areas of the State and creating large scale employment opportunities, the Government of Gujarat had formulated Industrial Incentive Policy 1995-2000 which, inter alia, provided for giving capital investment subsidy and sales tax incentives. The scheme had come into operation with effect from August 16, 1996 and was to be operative for a period of 5 years, i.e., up to August 15, 2000. In the conference of Chief Ministers and Finance Ministers of States and Union Territories which was held on November 16, 1999, the State Oral. Governments and Central Government had evolved a consensus for abolition of sales tax related incentives and concessions. It was also decided in principle to give effect to this discontinuance of incentives with effect from January 1, 2000. The Standing Committee of State Finance Ministers which was constituted to monitor sales tax reforms in its meeting held on December 20, 1999 unanimously resolved that there should be no new incentives relating to sales tax for any industry and that the industrial units in pipelines should be given incentives only if such units fulfilled certain conditions. In view of this policy decision, the Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onditions stipulated in the resolution dated April 29, 2000, the petitioner-unit ought to have been treated as a pipeline case and should have been granted benefit of Industrial Incentive Policy 1995-2000. What is claimed in the petition is that on the basis of promise held out by the respondents in Industrial Incentive Policy 1995-2000, the petitioner had obtained provisional registration as small-scale industry as well as the land on lease and, therefore, now the respondents are estopped from refusing to grant benefit of Industrial Incentive Policy 1995-2000. The petitioner has also averred that the cut-off date prescribed by resolution dated April 29, 2000, is arbitrary and that the said resolution could not have been made applicable with retrospective effect from January 1, 2000. Under the circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present petition and claimed the reliefs to which reference is made hereinabove. 3.. On notice being served, Mr. J.N. Jadhav, General Manager, District Industries Centre, Vidhya Nagar, Bhavnagar, has filed reply affidavit controverting the averments made in the petition. In the reply, it is mentioned that after discontinuation of sales tax based ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n dated April 29, 2000 is neither arbitrary nor irrational and as the petitioner does not satisfy all the conditions stipulated therein to be treated as a pipeline case, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the petition. The learned counsel stressed that the Government is competent to change its policy in public interest on the basis of resource crunch and as the petitioner had not obtained provisional certificate as small-scale industry prior to December 31, 1999 or obtained possession of the land before the said date, the principle of promissory estoppel would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. It was argued that the resolution dated April 29, 2000 was issued pursuant to decision taken at the conference of Chief Ministers and Finance Ministers of States and Union Territories which was held on November 16, 1999 and as the petitioner must be presumed to be aware of the said decision taken on November 16, 1999, the petition should not be entertained. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in Sales Tax Officer v. Shree Durga Oil Mills [1998] 108 STC 274 (SC); (1998) 1 SCC 572. 6.. We have heard the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vised rate schedules and the rate schedules which were incorporated in these notifications contained an item pertaining to incentives to new industries. The rebate provided under notification dated January 28, 1986 was deleted by another notification. It was found that new industries which were set up had altered their position irretrievably. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court invoked principle of promissory estoppel to pin down the U.P. State Electricity Board to the promise offered by it. Here, in this case, the petitioner has not availed of any benefit under Industrial Incentive Policy 1995-2000 nor altered its position and had made application for provisional registration as a small-scale unit as well as obtained land on lease, after cut-off date of January 1, 2000 prescribed by Government Resolution dated April 29, 2000. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief on the basis of decision of the Supreme Court in Pawan Alloys (1997) 7 SCC 251. Again in State of Rajasthan [2002] 125 STC 290 (SC); (1999) 3 SCC 264, the respondent-cement plant was granted 100 per cent exemption under Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1977 for a period of 7 years but by subsequent a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest involved and the court will not interfere with any action taken by the Government in public interest. What is emphasised therein is that public interest must override any consideration of private loss or gain and the plea of change of trade policy on the basis of resource crunch should be treated as sufficient for dismissing the respondent's case based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel. In view of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the above quoted decision, we are of the opinion that the resolution dated April 29, 2000 cannot be treated as arbitrary one or irrational. The cut-off date prescribed by the said resolution also cannot be regarded as arbitrary because before the cut-off date, decision was already taken to abolish sales tax related incentives and concessions in the conference of the Chief Ministers and Finance Ministers of States and Union Territories which was held on November 16, 1999 and the petitioner must be presumed to be aware of the same. The petitioner has failed to establish plea of promissory estoppel. On overall view of the matter, we are satisfied that the action of the respondents in not granting the benefit of Industrial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
