Distance-based sales tax deferment limits prevail over growth-centre status unless a resolution clearly grants a specific relaxation.

An incentive scheme that limits sales tax deferment by distance cannot be expanded by merely listing a place as a growth centre. Units located within the prohibited distance from Baroda remained ineligible unless a specific resolution clearly relaxed that restriction. The 15 September 1978 resolution provided only a limited relaxation for specified backward areas and existing growth centres within the banned zone, while the 31 March 1981 resolution extended full incentives only to Hathi Committee backward talukas and centrally notified backward districts. Padra did not fall within those categories, so only the limited deferment benefit was available.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a new industrial unit established at Padra, though mentioned as a growth centre, could claim sales tax deferment under the 1977 and 1980 incentive schemes despite being located within the prohibited distance from Baroda; (ii) whether the resolutions dated 15 September 1978 and 31 March 1981 extended the benefit of sales tax deferment to the petitioner.

Issue (i): whether a new industrial unit established at Padra, though mentioned as a growth centre, could claim sales tax deferment under the 1977 and 1980 incentive schemes despite being located within the prohibited distance from Baroda.

Analysis: The schemes, read as a whole, made the incentives available only to units located beyond the prescribed distance limits, and the mere inclusion of Padra in the list of growth centres did not override the specific exclusion of units within the banned area. The reference to growth centres had to be harmonised with the distance restriction, and no enforceable assurance arose in favour of units situated within the prohibited distance. The doctrine of promissory estoppel was therefore not attracted.

Conclusion: The claim based on Padra being a growth centre was rejected, and units within the prohibited distance were held ineligible for deferment under those schemes.

Issue (ii): whether the resolutions dated 15 September 1978 and 31 March 1981 extended the benefit of sales tax deferment to the petitioner.

Analysis: The 15 September 1978 resolution granted a limited relaxation only for the specified backward areas and existing growth centres within the banned distance, and the later resolution of 31 March 1981 extended full incentives only to areas of Hathi Committee backward talukas and centrally notified backward districts falling within the restricted distance. Padra was neither a centrally notified backward district nor a Hathi Committee backward taluka, so the petitioner could not bring itself within the scope of that further relaxation.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled only to the limited benefit flowing from the 15 September 1978 relaxation, and not to the full benefit under the 31 March 1981 resolution.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only to the extent of the limited relaxation, and the petitioner obtained deferment certificate benefits up to the reduced ceiling, while the broader claim for full incentives failed.

Ratio Decidendi: When an incentive scheme expressly restricts benefits by distance, inclusion of a place in a growth-centre list does not override the exclusion unless the governing resolution clearly and specifically relaxes the restriction for that category of unit or area.

---