Promissory estoppel cannot defeat tax recovery where deferment depends on an operative statutory framework and prescribed rules.

An industrial incentive policy could not by itself secure deferment of sales tax and purchase tax where the statutory mechanism was not yet operative for the petitioners. Section 25A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 and the later rules provided only a governed framework for deferment, and no order, notification, or valid application under that framework was shown. Promissory estoppel also failed because no clear and specific promise was established, and an executive assurance cannot override the taxing statute. The claim for deferment was rejected and recovery of tax upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to deferment of sales tax and purchase tax on the basis of the State Government's industrial incentive policy, and whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel could be invoked to prevent recovery of tax in the absence of statutory amendment and prescribed rules.

Analysis: Section 25A of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 was inserted only in April 1984 and authorised deferment of tax by specified classes of industries prospectively or retrospectively subject to prescribed conditions. The corresponding machinery provisions in the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 were introduced much later through rules 17-A to 17-R, and the petitioners did not show that they had applied for deferment after those rules came into force. In the absence of an operative statutory framework and any order or notification extending deferment to the petitioners, the incentive policy by itself could not compel the authorities to withhold recovery of tax. The plea of promissory estoppel also failed because the petitioners did not establish a clear and specific promise that was actually acted upon, and in any event an executive assurance cannot override statutory provisions. The principle that a government notification or policy measure cannot be enforced contrary to the governing law was applied.

Conclusion: The claim for deferment of sales tax and purchase tax was rejected, and the plea of promissory estoppel was held not maintainable against enforcement of the taxing statute.

Ratio Decidendi: An executive incentive policy cannot be enforced through promissory estoppel to defeat recovery of tax where the statutory provision and prescribed rules governing deferment are absent or not yet operative.

---