Promissory estoppel cannot override a statutory ceiling where the claimant also fails to prove clear reliance on the incentive scheme.

Promissory estoppel cannot be used to compel the State to act contrary to a statutory ceiling or to defeat retrospective legislation. The article explains that an equitable executive assurance cannot override the A.P. Interest-free Sales Tax Loans for Industries (Imposition of Ceiling) Act, 1987, because the doctrine does not bind the Government where the representation conflicts with the statutory scheme. It also notes that entitlement to an incentive under an earlier Government order depends on clear reliance and alteration of position; on the stated facts, the industry did not act within the scheme period or establish the required reliance, so the incentive claim failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be invoked against the Government to compel it to act contrary to the A.P. Interest-free Sales Tax Loans for Industries (Imposition of Ceiling) Act, 1987. (ii) Whether, on the facts, the petitioner was entitled to claim the incentive under the earlier Government order on the basis of promissory estoppel.

Issue (i): Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be invoked against the Government to compel it to act contrary to the A.P. Interest-free Sales Tax Loans for Industries (Imposition of Ceiling) Act, 1987.

Analysis: Promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine, but it cannot be used to prevent the Government from discharging a duty imposed by statute or to compel an act prohibited by law. The doctrine also cannot override legislative action, and it cannot bind the State where the representation is contrary to the statutory scheme. The retrospective ceiling imposed by the Act operated as a statutory bar to the larger claim for incentive.

Conclusion: The doctrine of promissory estoppel could not be invoked to compel the Government to act contrary to the Act; the issue is answered against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts, the petitioner was entitled to claim the incentive under the earlier Government order on the basis of promissory estoppel.

Analysis: The material circumstances did not show that the industry was established in reliance on the incentive scheme in the manner required to attract promissory estoppel. The petitioner did not seek registration within the operative period of the scheme, did not act with promptitude when the scheme was available, and applied only after the retrospective ceiling legislation had been brought into force. The facts did not establish the necessary reliance or alteration of position attributable to the earlier representation.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to claim the incentive on the facts of the case; the issue is answered against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The statutory ceiling prevailed over the claimed executive assurance, and the writ petition failed on both the legal and factual bases urged.

Ratio Decidendi: Promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to defeat a statutory command or to compel the State to confer benefits prohibited by retrospective legislation, and it applies only where the claimant proves clear reliance and a legally sustainable entitlement.

---