9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (1) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igerators, gaskets, flooring material shower curtains. In recent past we have seen tumblers, pots of all sizes in the bazar. All these are products of PVC. 2. In India PVC is imported on large quantities. It is also manufactured indigenously. Then exigencies of market warrant, the Government of India allowed PVC to import duty free by issuing appropriate notifications. In the above cases five each notifications are assailed where under imports were allowed free of duty at first and later were rescinded. 3. The impugned notifications were promulgated under Section 25 of the Sea Customs Act, 52 of 1962 ('the Act'). The notifications after they are published, were placed before and ratified by the two Houses of Parliament as required in Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, we restrict to consider whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel is not available to the writ petitioners. Five of the eight cases are appeals (disposed of by a common order) and in the order under appeal an error has crept in and we wish the error corrected. It is recited in the order under appeal: "It is not the case of the petitioners that only because of the exemption notification they placed orders abroad and that, but for the said notification they would have purchased it in the home-market at a lesser price." This is a factual error since at page 4 paragraph 8 of the affidavit it is averred:" ..... but for the earlier notification we would not have placed orders with the foreign manufacturers for importing the commodity and inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssurances which were acted upon. After the Constitution executive necessity was considered in Rai Ramkrishna v. State of Bihar, AIR 1963 S.C. 1667. It was emphasised even while levying taxes the rights of citizen are to be considered. In saying so, the principle in promissory estoppel was considered. In the next case Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies, AIR 1968 S.C. 718 the doctrine emerged with a bang. It was said "If a member of the executive seeks to deprive a citizen of his right or liberty otherwise than in exercise of power derived from the law, common or statute, the Courts will be competent to, and indeed would be sound to protect the rights of the aggrieved citizen." (Para 10). Thus bare bones of the doctrine were shaped in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... QUIRE THE FOREST land for sixty years, if only the company used timber in the forest for production of rayon cloth. Contrary to the agreement, the land was acquired. The company pressed for enforcement of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The attempt was in vain. It is not necessary to state what should have been done in that case at this distance of time. 9. The doctrine of promissory estoppel appeared in full shape in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of U.P., AIR 1979 S.C. 621. The State in that case assured a sugar manufacturing company exemption from sales tax for three years from the date of production. The State when retracted the undertaking given, they were ordered to honour the assurance given by them. The contention that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jit Ram Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 1980 S.C. 1285. In that case five principles were evolved, which would show the principle in the doctrine is not good law: (1) promissory estoppel is not available against the statute. (2) the doctrine cannot prevent the state discharging its functions. (3) when the officer of the Government acts outside the scope of his authority, the plea of promissory estoppel is not available. (4) When the Officer acts within the scope of his authority, the doctrine has no application. (5) The Officer is justified if foreign exchange position warrants not to redeem the promises made. That is said in one, four and five, no doubt, cut the root of promissory estoppel. The doctrine thus from its roots in that cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as 950 dollars in June 1980 and 700 dollars in July, 1980. It was in this fluctuation to prevent dumping operations from abroad, duty was exempted and levied. Full exemption was granted on March 15, 1979. Parial duty was levied upto October 16, 1980. These facts were considered in equity. It was also held pursuant to Section 159 the adoptions of procedure in notifications were placed before the parliament, therefore the doctrine was inapplicable. 13. We see the impugned notifications were processed under Section 159 of the Act. Since we hold the five notifications were placed before the two Houses of Parliament, therefore, no relief can be granted to the Writ Petitioners. We, however, are left with an uneasy feeling. We feel exceptions to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
