Promissory estoppel cannot override a later tax statute, and exemption must satisfy the current eligibility conditions.

Promissory estoppel could not be relied on to claim sales tax exemption once the earlier concessionary regime was repealed and replaced by the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concessions) Act, 1987; the claim had to be assessed under the statute then in force, and estoppel cannot compel the Government to act contrary to law. The industry also failed the statutory definition of a "new industrial unit" because it had been operating since 1962 and did not satisfy the Act's eligibility condition that effective steps be completed within the prescribed period. The exemption claim therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant could invoke promissory estoppel to claim sales tax exemption after the earlier concessionary regime stood replaced by the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concessions) Act, 1987; (ii) Whether the appellant industry qualified as a "new industrial unit" under the 1987 Act so as to obtain the claimed exemption.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant could invoke promissory estoppel to claim sales tax exemption after the earlier concessionary regime stood replaced by the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concessions) Act, 1987.

Analysis: The concession originally linked to the industrial policy could not override the later statutory regime. Once the 1986 enactment had been repealed and substituted by the 1987 Act, the claim had to be tested under the prevailing statute. Promissory estoppel cannot be used to compel the Government to act contrary to law or to defeat the legitimate exercise of statutory power.

Conclusion: The doctrine of promissory estoppel was not available to the appellant and the claim on that basis failed, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant industry qualified as a "new industrial unit" under the 1987 Act so as to obtain the claimed exemption.

Analysis: The 1987 Act defined a "new industrial unit" as one for which all effective steps were completed within the specified period. The appellant industry had been in operation since 1962 and therefore did not satisfy that definition. The statutory eligibility condition was thus not met.

Conclusion: The appellant was not a new industrial unit within the meaning of the 1987 Act and was not entitled to the exemption, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The statutory concession could not be enforced contrary to the repealed and substituted regime, and the appellant did not fall within the class of units entitled to exemption under the applicable law.

Ratio Decidendi: Promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to defeat or enlarge rights under a later operative statute, and exemption claims must satisfy the eligibility conditions of the statute in force at the relevant time.

---