Promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation cannot defeat a statutory turnover tax levy backed by clarificatory retrospective amendment.

Promissory estoppel could not bar turnover tax on a small-scale industrial unit because the assurance invoked related to sales-tax incentives, not a separate legislative turnover tax levy, and no specific promise against that levy was shown. Legitimate expectation and collateral estoppel also failed, since they cannot invalidate legislation or defeat a statutory tax charge; the retrospective deletion of the exemption clause was treated as clarificatory. The levy was held within legislative competence and not violative of equality or the right to carry on business. The claimed exemption was rejected, and the assessment and demand notices were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel could prevent levy of turnover tax on a small-scale industrial unit claiming tax-holiday benefits; (ii) whether legitimate expectation or collateral estoppel could defeat the statutory levy and the retrospective deletion of the exemption clause; (iii) whether the levy of turnover tax and the denial of exemption under the relevant provisions were unconstitutional or otherwise entitled the applicants to relief.

Issue (i): whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel could prevent levy of turnover tax on a small-scale industrial unit claiming tax-holiday benefits.

Analysis: The assurance relied upon related to sales tax exemption and tax-holiday incentives, whereas turnover tax was imposed by a separate legislative levy. Promissory estoppel cannot be invoked against a legislative function, and the record did not establish any specific governmental assurance that turnover tax would not be levied. The levy also came into force before the applicants commenced manufacture and first sale.

Conclusion: The plea of promissory estoppel failed and could not bar the levy.

Issue (ii): whether legitimate expectation or collateral estoppel could defeat the statutory levy and the retrospective deletion of the exemption clause.

Analysis: Legitimate expectation cannot invalidate legislation, and collateral estoppel has no application to the imposition of tax in the manner contended. The earlier judicial decisions relied upon did not create any enforceable assurance against turnover tax, and the retrospective deletion of the exemption clause was treated as clarificatory rather than as a withdrawal of a separate turnover tax immunity.

Conclusion: Neither legitimate expectation nor collateral estoppel entitled the applicants to exemption from turnover tax.

Issue (iii): whether the levy of turnover tax and the denial of exemption under the relevant provisions were unconstitutional or otherwise entitled the applicants to relief.

Analysis: The levy was held to be within legislative competence and not violative of the equality clause or the right to carry on business. The exemption provisions for sales tax did not extend to turnover tax in the manner claimed, and the retrospective omission of the relevant clause did not render the levy unconstitutional or invalidate the assessment and demand orders.

Conclusion: The constitutional challenge and the claim for exemption failed, and the assessment orders and demand notices were not liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The statutory levy of turnover tax was upheld, the applicants were found not entitled to the claimed exemption, and the proceedings were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A legislative levy of turnover tax cannot be defeated by promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation based on sales-tax incentive provisions, and a clarificatory retrospective amendment does not confer immunity from the tax.

---