9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (5) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeals. Nos., 1101 to 1144 of 1979. It appears that the Government of Karnataka decided to adopt a policy to encourage rapid industrialisation. An Order No. CT 58 FMI 69 dated June 30, 1969, was issued which recited that the Government, namely, the Government of Karnataka, was committed to a policy of rapid industrialisation and that, in pursuance thereof, the Government had on November 30, 1966, issued directions indicating the incentives that would be given to entrepreneurs starting new industries in the Mysore State. The material part of the said order, for our purposes, runs thus: " Consequently, the Governor of Mysore is pleased to sanction the following incentives and conce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax paid ......... .. " Several persons claimed that they had started new industrial units in the State on the assurances extended or because of the concessions granted to them, inter alia, under the said order dated June 30, 1969. They filed writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka claiming that the industrial undertakings started between June 30, 1969, when the order dated June 12, 1969, came into effect and before the order dated January 12, 1977, was issued could not be deprived of the concessions given to them by the former order as the said grant of concessions constituted a promissory estoppel against the Government on the basis of which they had acted by starting new industries requiring investment of considerable funds an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... promissory estoppel was not applicable in the present case because it was found by the Government of Karnataka that the concessions granted under the said order dated June 30, 1969, were being misused and undue advantage was being taken of the same. It was submitted by him that in view of this, it would not be proper to hold the Government to the promises or the assurances it had given under the said order dated June 30, 1969. We are afraid, it is not possible to accept this submission. No counter-affidavit was filed by the appellants before the trial court in the writ petition. Beyond the statement o counsel, there is nothing to show that any misuse was made of these concessions or undue advantage taken of the same. It is true that the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated June 30, 1969, were of no legal effect as there is no statutory provision under which such concessions could be granted and the order of June 30, 1969, was ultra vires and bad in law. We totally fail to see how an Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax who are functionaries of a State can say that a concession granted by the State itself was beyond the powers of the State or how the State can say so either. Moreover, if the said argument of learned counsel is correct, the result would be that even the second order of January 12, 1977, would be equally invalid as it also grants concessions by way of refunds, although in a more limited manner and that is not even the case of the appellants. Although, we are of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9, one has to see the substance of the concession granted under the order and not merely certain words used out of context. Although the benefit regarding sales tax granted to the new industries is by way of refund of sales tax paid to the extent provided in the order, it is clear that, in effect, the benefit granted is in the nature of an exemption from the payment of the sales tax or reduction in the sales tax liability to the extent stated in the order. In view of this, there is no substance whatever in the contention that the State Government had no authority to provide for the grant of refunds. Again, the mere fact that the order of June 30, 1969, did not specify the power under which it was issued will make no difference because such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
