Promissory estoppel cannot block lawful octroi levy where an earlier municipal assurance exceeded authority.

Promissory estoppel cannot compel a public authority to continue an octroi exemption promised in a sale proclamation where the Municipality lacked competence to grant a permanent exemption and the State acted within the statutory scheme. An ultra vires municipal assurance does not bind later lawful exercise of statutory taxing power, and estoppel cannot override legislation, validate an unauthorised act, or prevent the Government from discharging public duties. The impugned octroi levy and the Government's approval of the municipal resolution were therefore valid, because the earlier representation could not create an enforceable bar against a levy imposed under lawful authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Municipality and the State Government were bound by promissory estoppel to continue the exemption from octroi duty promised in the sale proclamation. (ii) Whether the impugned levy of octroi duty and the Government's approval of the municipal resolution were invalid for want of authority or because the Municipality had earlier represented that no octroi would be charged.

Issue (i): Whether the Municipality and the State Government were bound by promissory estoppel to continue the exemption from octroi duty promised in the sale proclamation.

Analysis: The representation in the proclamation could not bind the public authority where the Municipality had no competence to permanently exempt the market from octroi and where the State acted within the statutory scheme. The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot override legislative or statutory power, cannot validate an unauthorised act, and cannot prevent the Government from acting in discharge of its public duty. A public authority may be held to its promise only so long as it acts within authority and there are no overriding considerations of public interest or statutory power requiring a different course.

Conclusion: The plea of promissory estoppel failed against both the Municipality and the State Government.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned levy of octroi duty and the Government's approval of the municipal resolution were invalid for want of authority or because the Municipality had earlier represented that no octroi would be charged.

Analysis: The statutory provisions empowered the State Government to require imposition or modification of tax and to confirm exemptions in the manner prescribed. The earlier municipal representation, being beyond the Municipality's authority, could not create an enforceable bar against the subsequent statutory levy. The Government's approval of the levy was an exercise of statutory power, and the Municipality's recommendation to levy octroi was not rendered unlawful merely because it departed from the earlier assurance. Estoppel could not be used to defeat a lawful tax imposed for public purposes.

Conclusion: The levy and the Government's approval were valid and not liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were unsustainable because neither promissory estoppel nor the earlier municipal assurance could defeat the statutory power to levy octroi, and the challenged actions were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to prevent a public authority from exercising statutory or legislative powers, or to give effect to an ultra vires assurance made without authority, especially where the later action is taken in accordance with law and public interest.

---