2010 (1) TMI 562 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Supreme Court Upholds Sales Tax Exemption Ruling, Orders Refund

State of Bihar and others Versus Kalyanpur Cements Ltd.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash the State Government's orders denying sales tax exemption and directed the issuance of the ... Whether the company could have invoked the principle of 'promissory estoppel' in support of its claim? Held that:- State challenging the judgment and order dated April 24, 2002 is dismisse. It would be not possible to accept the submissions of Mr. Parshad that in view of the financial condition of the company it may be permitted to retain the amount collected under the orders of this court. The amount was collected from the consumer to offset the tax liability. Such amount cannot be permitted to be retained by the company. The objective of the exemption is to grant incentive to encourage industrialization. It is to enable the industry to compete in the market. On the other hand, refund of tax is made only when it has been realized illegally or contrary to the provisions of law. Tax lawfully levied and realized cannot be refunded. In view of the settled position of the law, we decline to accept the suggestion made by Mr. Parshad. Direction is, therefore, issued that the amount deposited by the company in the designated account opened and operated pursuant to the order of this court dated November 18, 2002 together with accrued interest shall be released to the appellant-State, forthwith. Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for sales tax exemption under the Industrial Policy, 1995.2. Application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.3. Validity of the State Government's decisions dated January 6, 2001, and March 5, 2001.4. Compliance with the Supreme Court's interim order dated November 18, 2002.Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility for Sales Tax Exemption under the Industrial Policy, 1995:The company, a large-scale cement manufacturer, applied for sales tax exemption under the Industrial Policy, 1995, which was intended to assist in the revival of sick industrial units. The company claimed eligibility for this exemption, which was crucial for its financial restructuring. The State Level Committee on Rehabilitation recommended this exemption, but the necessary notification was delayed by the State Government.2. Application of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel:The company invoked the doctrine of promissory estoppel, arguing that it had relied on the State Government's repeated assurances and promises of sales tax exemption. The Supreme Court noted that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is well-established and applies to the government, especially when there is an unequivocal promise intended to create legal relations, and the promisee has acted upon it. The court found that the company had laid a clear foundation for invoking this doctrine, supported by documented assurances from the State Government.3. Validity of the State Government's Decisions Dated January 6, 2001, and March 5, 2001:The State Government's decisions to deny the sales tax exemption were based on four reasons: the lapse of the Industrial Policy, 1995; the non-issuance of the necessary notification; the non-approval by the State Level Empowered Committee (SLEC); and a policy change following a Chief Ministers' conference. The Supreme Court found these reasons to be arbitrary and unsupported by the record. The court emphasized that the State Government could not rely on its own lapses to deny the exemption and that the company had been given clear assurances of the exemption.4. Compliance with the Supreme Court's Interim Order Dated November 18, 2002:The Supreme Court had directed the company to deposit an amount equivalent to the sales tax payable in an interest-bearing account. The company failed to comply fully with this order, citing financial difficulties. The court acknowledged the company's financial struggles but emphasized that the amount collected from consumers as tax could not be retained by the company. The court directed that the deposited amount, along with accrued interest, be released to the State Government.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash the State Government's orders dated January 6, 2001, and March 5, 2001, and directed the issuance of the necessary notification for sales tax exemption. The court also allowed the State's application to release the deposited amount to the government, emphasizing that the company's financial difficulties did not justify retaining the collected tax. The appeal by the State was dismissed, and the company's claim for sales tax exemption under the Industrial Policy, 1995, was upheld.