Promissory estoppel and mandamus under a time-bound incentive scheme failed without a clear promise or enforceable legal right.

Promissory estoppel did not apply because the pleadings and record did not show any clear, unequivocal promise by the State to extend the time for commencing commercial production or relax the time-bound sales tax incentive scheme. A memorandum of understanding referring to facilitation and assistance was not an enforceable assurance of continued eligibility. Mandamus was also unavailable because a writ requires a subsisting legal right and corresponding public duty, and the scheme did not confer an individual right to further extension after the general extensions had expired. The refusal to grant the benefit was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled, on the basis of promissory estoppel, to extension of time for commencement of commercial production so as to secure the benefit of the sales tax incentive scheme; (ii) Whether the refusal by the authorities to extend the time limit and grant the requested benefit justified issuance of mandamus.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled, on the basis of promissory estoppel, to extension of time for commencement of commercial production so as to secure the benefit of the sales tax incentive scheme.

Analysis: The doctrine of promissory estoppel required a clear and specific foundation in the pleadings, supported by facts showing an unequivocal promise and change of position in reliance on it. The material on record did not establish any firm assurance by the State to provide all facilities so as to secure the exemption benefit irrespective of the scheme timeline. The memorandum of understanding indicated only facilitation and assistance, not an enforceable promise to extend eligibility or relax the time-bound conditions of the incentive scheme.

Conclusion: The plea of promissory estoppel failed and no extension of the scheme benefit could be claimed on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the refusal by the authorities to extend the time limit and grant the requested benefit justified issuance of mandamus.

Analysis: A writ of mandamus can issue only where a subsisting legal right and a corresponding public duty are shown. The incentive scheme was framed to revive industrial activity in Kutch within a defined time frame, and the repeated general extensions had already been exhausted. The petitioner commenced production long after the extended deadline, and the scheme did not confer an enforceable right to a further individual extension. In the absence of a legal duty to grant such relaxation, the refusal of the authorities did not warrant judicial interference.

Conclusion: No mandamus could be issued, and the refusal to extend time was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the rejection of benefits under the incentive scheme was unsuccessful because neither promissory estoppel nor a legal entitlement to further extension was established.

Ratio Decidendi: In a time-bound fiscal incentive scheme, relief by promissory estoppel or mandamus cannot be granted unless there is a clear enforceable promise and a subsisting legal right to the requested relaxation.

---