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 petitioner was entitled to sales tax exemption under section 3(2) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 read with the Tripura State Scheme for Incentives to Industrial Units, 1984, and whether promissory estoppel could be invoked against the levy of tax.
Analysis: The Scheme granted sales tax exemption only to industrial units covered by it, and the eligibility conditions required the unit to fall within the defined class of eligible units and to have been set up in the relevant period. The petitioner's unit had been established in 1983, before 1 April 1984, and therefore did not fall within the Scheme. The petitioner also was unaware of any exemption and had not acted on any clear and unequivocal promise or representation made by the State. In these circumstances, the essential elements of promissory estoppel were absent. The later note of the Inspector of Taxes could not affect assessments already covering periods anterior to that note.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to exemption, and the plea of promissory estoppel failed. The levy of sales tax was upheld in favour of the Revenue.
Ratio Decidendi: Promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to defeat a tax levy unless there is a clear promise or representation within the applicable scheme that was acted upon by the claimant, and the claimant is otherwise within the scope of the scheme.