TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court sets aside Tribunal's order, emphasizes promissory estoppel in tax exemption case.</h1> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remanding the case for a fresh decision. The Court emphasized the application ... Does the doctrine of promissory estoppel apply in the facts and circumstances of this case, so as to prevent the amendments from even having prospective effect in the case of the present applicant? Held that:- Appeal allowed. As before applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel, as it did, the Tribunal should have reached a finding as to whether or not the respondent's plant qualified as a small-scale industry or as a mini cement plant within the meaning of the amended scheme. This was the respondent's only case before it. If the particulars in this behalf were not, as it stated, before the Tribunal, the Tribunal should have called for the same or sought a finding on this aspect from the tax authorities. Issues:Challenge to assessment order under Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Interpretation of Sales Tax Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1987. Retrospective effect of amendments. Applicability of doctrine of promissory estoppel. Classification of cement plant as small-scale unit or mini cement plant.Analysis:The judgment dealt with a challenge to an assessment order under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The respondent, a small-scale unit, claimed 100% exemption from sales tax under the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1987. The Tribunal raised questions regarding the retrospective effect of amendments, the application of promissory estoppel, and the classification of the cement plant as a small-scale unit or a mini cement plant.The Tribunal found that the respondent's cement plant was eligible for 100% exemption under the scheme when established. Subsequent amendments sought to restrict benefits for mini cement plants. The Tribunal held that the promise made to the respondent, allowing 100% exemption, could not be withdrawn retrospectively. It emphasized the application of promissory estoppel, stating that the promise must be kept, and any scheme alterations should only apply prospectively.Regarding the period from September 12, 1989, to February 22, 1990, the Tribunal found the respondent wrongly required to deposit sales tax. However, for the period after February 22, 1990, the Tribunal relied solely on promissory estoppel. The Supreme Court noted the lack of a clear plea of promissory estoppel in the respondent's application and the absence of factual particulars supporting it. The Court also highlighted the need for a determination on whether the plant qualified as a small-scale industry or a mini cement plant before applying promissory estoppel.Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal concerning the period post-February 22, 1990, setting aside the Tribunal's order. The case was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision based on the issues discussed in the judgment. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
