9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (7) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng thereto and/or from demanding any basic duty of customs or any countervailing duty in excess of Rs. 2.37 P. per kg. on the viscose staple fibre imported by the petitioner Company as mentioned in and pursuant to the contracts in Annexure "D" prior to December 31, 1980. 2. It is stated that the Notifications dated 5th January, 1979 as amended by Notification dated October 30, 1979 clearly stated that the exemption granted thereunder would remain in force upto and inclusive of December 31,1980. Representations were made by the Government of India fully knowing that the importers of viscose staple fibre including the petitioner No. 1 would be acting thereupon and it is alleged that in fact, the petitioner No. 1 on the basis of representati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions under which it is made, the order would be deemed to have been made under that provision of the Statute. In that case, the question of exemption to new industries from sales tax and other tax for five years were considered. The attention of the Court has been drawn to another case reported in 65 S.T.C. 430 (State of Bihar and Anr. v. Usha Martin Industries Ltd.). Following the decision of Pournami Oil Mills (Supra) and (Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of U.P.) reported in 44 STC 42, it was found in that case that the Sales Tax Authorities were bound to give exemption on the basis of the resolutions and the respondents were entitled to incentives in terms of the resolutions. 4. Looking to another decision reported in 70 S.T.C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake into account that such an exemption was necessary, they must place such material on record as to convince the Court as to why such exemption was detrimental in public interest. 6. In that context another decision was cited from the Bar in support of the petitioners as reported in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 40 (Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. v. Union of India) wherein also the question of estoppel and in particular promissory estoppel was considered in the proper perspective. The duration of the Notification granting certain benefits and the impact of the withdrawal of such Notification by another and the impact thereof were considered. In course of the said decision, it was observed that there is no reason why the Government should be permit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ositive point of view that there is sufferance. Unless such sufferance are demonstrated in the proper perspective, the Writ Court would be slow to grant reliefs on the basis of only dry principle of law. This Court appreciates the principle of law cited from the Bar in support of the case of the petitioners, but applying the tests as laid down in those reported decisions, this Court finds that those principles are not available to the petitioners' case herein. 8. Accordingly, this Court does not feel inclined to interfere in the matter to grant the reliefs as prayed for. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed and the Rule is discharged without any order as to costs. 9. Interim order, if any, is vacated. 10. There will be stay fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
