Promissory estoppel did not prevent withdrawal of a statutory sales tax exemption where the policy reserved amendment power.

A statutory sales tax exemption for edible oil units was treated as a revocable concession because the policy operated only through notification and the State had reserved power to amend the negative list. Promissory estoppel therefore did not bar withdrawal of the exemption, as no enforceable assurance was created that the concession would continue unchanged. The earlier ruling invalidating the original exemption notification remained binding, so the State could consistently include edible oils in the negative list and withdraw the benefit. On that basis, the withdrawal of sales tax exemption to edible oil units was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State was bound by promissory estoppel to continue the sales tax exemption up to 31 March 2000 despite the later withdrawal; (ii) Whether the withdrawal of exemption by including edible oils in the negative list was unsustainable because of the earlier decision holding the original exemption notification invalid.

Issue (i): Whether the State was bound by promissory estoppel to continue the sales tax exemption up to 31 March 2000 despite the later withdrawal.

Analysis: The policy itself stated that it would operate only upon issuance of the appropriate notification. The exemption was granted under the State's statutory power and, where the State had power to grant the concession, it also had power to withdraw it. The policy and notification did not create any assurance that the negative list would remain unaltered, and the Government had expressly reserved the right to amend it. The concession therefore did not amount to an enforceable promise against withdrawal.

Conclusion: The plea of promissory estoppel failed and the withdrawal was valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the withdrawal of exemption by including edible oils in the negative list was unsustainable because of the earlier decision holding the original exemption notification invalid.

Analysis: The earlier decision had set aside the original exemption notification insofar as it applied to edible oil industries. While the correctness of that earlier decision was not reopened, it remained binding. Since the exemption enjoyed by the appellants flowed from the same notification, the State was required to act consistently with that ruling and was entitled to place edible oils in the negative list and withdraw the benefit.

Conclusion: The challenge to the withdrawal on this ground also failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were not sustainable and the withdrawal of sales tax exemption to edible oil units was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax exemption granted under a statutory policy and notification can be withdrawn where the policy reserves such power, and a concession contrary to a binding judicial ruling cannot be continued on the basis of promissory estoppel.

---