Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1990 (1) TMI 81

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er, 1974, the total investment of the company went up to even over Rs. 30 crores. It is averred that during the time the petitioner was setting up its project, it explained the difficulties of new units to the Government of India for considering fiscal measures to be adopted for the tyre industry to enable new units to achieve a reasonable return on their investments and to be able to compete with the existing old established tyre companies. 2. It is claimed that the Government of India, after fully investigating the relevant facts pertaining to the tyre industry found that the cost of investment in putting up a new tyre industry had gone up by four times to that of the old established units and keeping that in view, recommended fiscal re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ous Collectorates in India issued trade notices highlighting the said incentive scheme. One such notice issued by the Nagpur Collectorate has been annexed as Annexure 'C' to the petition. The opening para of that document shows that the scheme of excise duty relief had been announced to encourage higher production. The salient features of the scheme, which, as we have noticed above, was to remain in force upto 31st March, 1979, were detailed in the said trade notice of 25th June, 1976. 7. The petitioner has averred in paragraphs 19 to 27 of the petition that acting on the basis of the aforesaid scheme and with a view to achieving the maximum benefit, it made large investments for increasing production. 8. However, on 14th July, 1978 the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or reasons which we have already discussed, no distinction can be made between the exercise of a sovereign or governmental function and a trading or business activity of the Government, so far as the doctrine of promissory estoppel is concerned. Whatever be the nature of the function which the Government is discharging the Government is subject to the rule of promissory estoppel and if the essential ingredients of this rule are satisfied, the Government can be compelled to carry out the promise made by it. We are, therefore, of the view that in the present case the Government was bound to exempt the appellant from payment of sales tax in respect of sales of vanaspati effected by it in the State of Uttar Pradesh for a period of three years f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... petitioner. 15. In Ceat Tyres of India Limited v. Union of India Others, reported in 1987(31) E.L.T. 332(Bom.), the very question which has fallen for our consideration viz., withdrawal of rebate on excise duty on excess production of tyres and tubes, fell for decision by the Bombay High Court. After surveying the case law, that Court was of the view that the exercise of power of exemption under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules cannot be held to be a legislative function and the promise held by the Government can be enforced. In paragraph 18 of the reported judgment, it was held as follows : "Therefore, it is clear that when an exemption has been issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, such exercise of power cannot be equa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat it would be inequitable to hold the Government to its promise made in the Notification of 1976. He reiterated the plea taken up in the counter-affidavit that the working of the scheme was reviewed at the end of the second financial year, i.e., 1977-78 and it was found that in respect of tyre industry certain anomalies and distortions had crept in. Therefore, the relief granted earlier was required to be withdrawn and thus in public interest the scheme was modified vide the impugned Notification. It is to be noticed that apart from a bare assertion, the respondents have not given any particulars or data to support the assertion. In Ceat Tyres's case (supra) it was held that it is just not enough to state that the exemptions were withdraw .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates