9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (12) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Where power has to be generated by industrialists themselves, exemption from electricity duty shall be granted for a period of five years from the date the plant goes into production. The concession shall be applicable only to new generating sets installed during the Third Plan period. Factually it was not disputed before the High court, that the case of the respondent squarely falls within the scope of the assurance reproduced above since the industrial plant of the respondent had gone into production with effect from 16/02/1965, the generating set put up was new, and had been installed during the Third Plan period. To formalise the matter, the respondent had corresponded with the government for the grant of the requisite exemption. Since the same was rejected and demands for payment of electricity duty created). the High court was requested to issue suitable writs, directions and orders cancelling the aforesaid orders and demand notices and granting exemption from payment of electricity duty in respect of electricity self-generated by the respondent during the said period of five years, and also commanding the State to carry out the assurance and promises made in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... run its paper plant and itwould by itself make arrangements for obtaining the necessary generating equipment. It appears that the State government had at that time its own project in view for installing a power plant. On that basis some correspondence ensued between the respondent and the State government with regard to its annual requirement of electricity. That exercise was abandoned for some reasons which are not relevant here. Thereafter the respondent applied for import licence for the import of a production plant as also a power plant to run it. The respondent was granted an import licence on the strength of which it started negotiations with an American supplier. While negotiations were in process the American supplier increased the price. It became impossible for the respondent to import the production plant and the power plant within the funds allotted to it by the World Bank and in these circumstances, the American suppliers advised the appellant to drop procurement of the power plant. At the same time the American supplier warned the respondent that if the power plant was not purchased along with the production plant, it would make the project unsound and it would not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars up to 15/02/1970. Whether the respondent was of one mind right from the beginning to set up a power plant, with or without the assurance of the State government dated 1/08/1961, as asserted by the State, is neither borne out not is the view of the High court arrived at from the record. Rather, on the contrary, the view taken is that the respondents indecision in that regard ended and it became decisive on the announcement of the assurance dated 1/08/1961. Such a view of the High court was a possible view to be taken on the material placed before it and the inference drawn therefrom could be that the respondent had acted on the basis of the assurance. The effort here to redo the exercise in this regard must inevitably fail, for this court ordinarily does not interfere with factual findings arrived at by the High court and this case has not been shown to us to be an exception. In this situation, the view taken by the High court was unexceptional warranting it to be left un interfered with. Some attempt was made by learned counsel for the appellant to contend that the doctrine of promissory estoppel could not be pressed into service to command the State government under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of electricity duty created). the High court was requested to issue suitable writs, directions and orders cancelling the aforesaid orders and demand notices and granting exemption from payment of electricity duty in respect of electricity self-generated by the respondent during the said period of five years, and also commanding the State to carry out the assurance and promises made in the said industrial policy dated 1/08/1961 extracted above and then requiring the State to issue a notification under S. 3-B of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1949 granting exemption or exception to the respondent from payment of electricity duty and Other allied consequential reliefs. Before the High court voluminous documentary evidence was given by the parties in support of their respective pleadings. The High court, on consideration of the entire material placed before it, spelled out a promissory estoppel in favour of the respondent and concluded as follows: To conclude, we are of opinion that the petitioner is entitled to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel in order to claim exemption from payment of electricity duty for a period of five years from 16/02/1965 to 15/02 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... import the production plant and the power plant within the funds allotted to it by the World Bank and in these circumstances, the American suppliers advised the appellant to drop procurement of the power plant. At the same time the American supplier warned the respondent that if the power plant was not purchased along with the production plant, it would make the project unsound and it would not be able to fulfil its guarantees as desired by the respondent. The respondent in these circumstances became of two minds, whether to have the power plant or not. When it was in that state of mind, the industrial policy was announced by the government on 1/08/1961. Thereafter, on August 21, 1961, the respondent applied to the government of India for sanction of permission to import 3.5 million dollar worth goods more than the sanctioned amount. Finally, the respondent with the consent of the Government of India with the aid of the World Bank was able to import the production plant and the power plant and after its installation was able to go on production with effect from 16/02/1965. The course of the events set out earlier were not disputed as such by the appellants before the High cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
