Sales tax exemption requires statutory notification; promissory estoppel fails without clear reliance and altered position.

A government incentive order that contemplates implementation through a statutory notification does not itself create an operative sales tax exemption; the exemption arises only when the prescribed notification is issued and the claimant satisfies the scheme conditions. The article also states that promissory estoppel requires a clear promise, reliance, and an altered position, but those elements were not established here because the claimant's own correspondence showed uncertainty about the incentive and acknowledgment that a notification was necessary. It further notes that tax was collected from consumers, undermining any equitable basis to retain the benefit of the alleged promise.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Government Order of 1971, standing alone, amounted to an exemption from sales tax or was only an enabling policy requiring a notification under section 5 of the General Sales Tax Act; (ii) whether the petitioner had established the factual foundation necessary to invoke promissory estoppel against the State.

Issue (i): whether the Government Order of 1971, standing alone, amounted to an exemption from sales tax or was only an enabling policy requiring a notification under section 5 of the General Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: Section 5 empowered exemption only by order and subject to prescribed restrictions and conditions. The combined reading of the provision and the Government Order showed that the order was not itself an operative exemption but only a policy decision or promise to grant incentives, to be implemented by a formal notification after the competent authority was satisfied that the claimant fell within the scheme. The petitioner's own correspondence showed that it understood the order as requiring a separate notification for exemption.

Conclusion: The order was not, by itself, an exemption from sales tax and could not be treated as a complete grant of relief without the requisite notification.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioner had established the factual foundation necessary to invoke promissory estoppel against the State.

Analysis: Promissory estoppel required a clear promise, reliance resulting in altered position, and equity in favour of enforcement. The petitioner failed on the facts: its own letters showed uncertainty about the availability of the incentive, acknowledgment that a notification under section 5 was necessary, and an intention to avoid charging tax only if exemption was confirmed. The record further showed that tax was in fact collected from consumers, so the petitioner had not acted upon the alleged promise in the manner required for the doctrine, and no equity arose in its favour to retain the tax collected.

Conclusion: The petitioner did not establish the ingredients for promissory estoppel, and the doctrine could not be invoked against the State.

Final Conclusion: The writ challenge to the assessment failed because the exemption claim was unsupported by the statutory framework and the equitable plea was negatived on the petitioner's own admissions and conduct.

Ratio Decidendi: A governmental incentive order that contemplates implementation through a statutory notification does not itself create an enforceable exemption, and promissory estoppel cannot be invoked where the claimant neither clearly relied on the promise nor refrained from passing on the tax burden to consumers.

---