Promissory estoppel protects industrial tax exemptions against later inconsistent notifications absent overriding public interest.

Government tax incentives announced in an industrial policy, when relied on by an industrial unit to expand its business, cannot be withdrawn by a later inconsistent notification unless the State shows a lawful bar or overriding public interest. The Gauhati HC noted that the 1991 industrial policy promised sales tax exemption to eligible units and that the petitioner altered its position on that basis. A 1999 notification under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 sought to exclude the unit on a brand-name condition, but the Court applied promissory estoppel and held that one department could not negate another department's promise without legal justification. The withdrawal was therefore invalid, and the promised exemption remained available.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State could, by a later sales tax concession scheme issued under the taxing statute, withdraw or restrict the exemption promised under the earlier industrial policy and eligibility certificate, and whether the withdrawal was barred by promissory estoppel in the absence of any overriding public interest.

Analysis: The industrial policy of 1991 promised sales tax exemption to eligible industrial units, and the petitioner altered its position by expanding its unit on that basis. The later notification of 1999, framed under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, rendered the petitioner ineligible because its biscuits were not sold in its own brand name. The governing statutory power under Section 9(4) read with Section 74(3)(f) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, had to be exercised consistently with the Government's own industrial policy and could not be used by one department to negate a promise made by another department of the same Government. The Court applied the doctrine of promissory estoppel and held that the Government can resile from its promise only if it shows a lawful bar or overriding public interest, neither of which was established.

Conclusion: The impugned notification, to the extent it withdrew the promised sales tax exemption and made the petitioner ineligible, was illegal and liable to be struck down. The petitioner remained entitled to the exemption promised under the industrial policy and the earlier scheme.

Final Conclusion: Governmental tax incentives announced in an industrial policy, when acted upon by the beneficiary, cannot be withdrawn through a later inconsistent departmental notification unless the State establishes a legal prohibition or overriding public interest.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Government makes a promise of tax exemption within the scope of its statutory power and an industrial unit alters its position in reliance on that promise, a subsequent notification inconsistent with the original policy cannot defeat the accrued benefit unless justified by law or overriding public interest.

---