Promissory estoppel and eligibility certificates did not compel industrial incentive benefits under the sales tax scheme.

Promissory estoppel did not support the claim for sales tax deferment and cash subsidy because the incentive resolutions, read together, disclosed no clear assurance that all industries outside the later exclusions would receive benefits, and no bona fide reliance altering position was proved. The eligibility certificate issued by the Industries Commissioner was only part of the administrative incentive scheme and did not bind the sales tax authorities or override their statutory powers. The challenge to denial of incentive benefits was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioner could claim sales tax deferment and cash subsidy on the basis of promissory estoppel arising from the Government resolutions governing industrial incentives; (ii) whether the eligibility certificate granted by the Industries Commissioner bound the sales tax authorities to confer the incentive benefits.

Issue (i): whether the petitioner could claim sales tax deferment and cash subsidy on the basis of promissory estoppel arising from the Government resolutions governing industrial incentives.

Analysis: The incentive resolutions were read together, and the later resolution of 18 March 1982 was treated as only prescribing the procedure for the existing sales tax incentive scheme introduced by the resolution of 27 August 1980. The exclusion of specified industries had already been made clear by the earlier resolution of 7 January 1982. The Court found no assurance or promise that all industries except those mentioned in the later resolution would receive benefits, and no reliable factual material showed that the petitioner altered its position in bona fide reliance on any such promise.

Conclusion: The plea of promissory estoppel failed, and the denial of sales tax deferment and recovery of subsidy could not be interfered with.

Issue (ii): whether the eligibility certificate granted by the Industries Commissioner bound the sales tax authorities to confer the incentive benefits.

Analysis: The eligibility certificate was held to be part of an administrative scheme framed by the Government and not a determination binding on the Government or on the statutory sales tax authorities. The issuance of such a certificate could not curtail the powers of the sales tax authorities under the governing tax law or compel grant of a benefit where the industry was not otherwise entitled to it.

Conclusion: The eligibility certificate did not bind the sales tax authorities and could not confer an enforceable right to the incentive benefits.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the denial of sales tax deferment and related incentive benefits was rejected, and the petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Government incentive resolutions may create an enforceable promise only where a clear representation and bona fide reliance causing alteration of position are proved, and an administrative eligibility certificate cannot override the statutory powers of the competent tax authority.

---