Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining exemption for the period after 22 February 1990 on the basis of promissory estoppel without the necessary factual foundation, and whether the matter required reconsideration on the nature of the plant and the pleadings.
Analysis: The exemption controversy turned on whether the respondent's unit was a small-scale unit or a mini cement plant under the amended incentive scheme. The Tribunal proceeded on promissory estoppel for the later period, but that doctrine had to be specifically pleaded and supported by factual particulars so that the other side could meet the case. The Tribunal also ought to have reached a finding on the character of the plant, or else called for the necessary material from the tax authorities, before granting relief on that basis. For the earlier period, no interference was warranted with the Tribunal's view.
Conclusion: The appeal was allowed for the period subsequent to 22 February 1990, and the Tribunal's order was set aside to that extent. The matter was restored to the Tribunal for fresh decision on the relevant factual and legal questions.
Ratio Decidendi: Promissory estoppel cannot be applied in tax exemption matters unless it is properly pleaded and supported by necessary factual particulars, and the authority must first determine the factual basis essential to the claimed entitlement before granting relief.