TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned single Judge did not accept the challenge. Therefore, these appeals. 2. The appellants are manufacturers of bottled drinking water. There were several such units. There was dispute, including up to this Court and the Supreme Court, as to the taxability of the package of drinking water. This Court and the Supreme Court found that they were not entitled for the exemption, as allowed to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 10 of the Act did not confer a power to cancel retrospectively a benefit, which had been granted. The effect of Ext. P8 is to cancel the benefit which has been granted for the period from 1.1.1994 to 9.4.2002; and (2) that the Government was estopped from issuing Ext. P8 because of the promise that they have already represented to the appellants and other unit holders in Ext. P10 that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conferred by the statute, it cannot be made use of beyond the powers so conferred. That position is now trite. Ext. PIO exemption was granted retrospectively. That notification was issued in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act, which enabled the Government to issue a notification exempting from payment of tax either retrospectively or prospectively. This power to issue retrospective ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ultra vires the powers conferred under Section 10(3) of the Act. 5. On that reason, the impugned judgment has to be reversed and consequently, Ext. P8 has to be quashed. In the light of these findings, there is no reason for considering the contention on promissory estoppel. 6. We have also carefully considered the contention of the Government Pleader that Ext. P8 does not amount to retrosp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|