Promissory estoppel cannot block withdrawal of a statutory tax concession, and the amendment did not violate freedom of trade.

A statutory tax remission under section 5CC of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act could be withdrawn or modified by a valid legislative amendment, so promissory estoppel and equitable estoppel could not prevent the Legislature from changing the concession. The amendment also did not, by itself, impose a restriction on freedom of trade and commerce under article 301, because the revised provision continued only a concessional tax regime for eligible industries. The amendment was therefore upheld, and the writ petition failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amendment to section 5CC of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 withdrawing the remission of purchase tax could be challenged on the ground of promissory estoppel or equitable estoppel; (ii) Whether the amendment violated article 301 of the Constitution of India by imposing an unreasonable restriction on freedom of trade and commerce.

Issue (i): Whether the amendment to section 5CC of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 withdrawing the remission of purchase tax could be challenged on the ground of promissory estoppel or equitable estoppel.

Analysis: The remission was altered by a legislative amendment enacted by the competent State Legislature. A statutory concession granted by an earlier provision can be withdrawn or modified by a subsequent legislative amendment. The doctrine of promissory estoppel does not operate against a validly enacted legislative change in the present context.

Conclusion: The challenge based on promissory estoppel and equitable estoppel was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the amendment violated article 301 of the Constitution of India by imposing an unreasonable restriction on freedom of trade and commerce.

Analysis: Withdrawal of a tax remission by legislative amendment does not, by itself, amount to a restriction on the freedom of trade and commerce protected by article 301. The amended provision only continued a concessional tax regime at 1 per cent for eligible industries and did not offend the constitutional guarantee.

Conclusion: The constitutional challenge under article 301 failed.

Final Conclusion: The amendment to section 5CC was upheld and the writ petition was dismissed as lacking merit.

Ratio Decidendi: Promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to prevent a competent Legislature from amending or withdrawing a statutory tax concession, and such withdrawal does not, without more, infringe article 301.

---