Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Supreme Court Upholds Promissory Estoppel in Development Rebate Case</h1> <h3>PAWAN ALLOYS AND CASTING PVT. LTD MEERUT Versus U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.</h3> PAWAN ALLOYS AND CASTING PVT. LTD MEERUT Versus U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. - 1997 AIR 3910, 1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 266, 1997 (7) SCC 251, 1997 (7) ... Issues Involved:1. Whether the Board is estopped from withdrawing the said rebate before the completion of the 3/5 year period, by virtue of the doctrine of promissory estoppelRs.2. Whether the agreement executed by the petitioners bars them from questioning the impugned notificationRs.3. Whether the impugned notification has no application to existing consumers and does it apply to only those consumers who receive the supply on or after 1.8.1986Rs.Summary of Judgment:Issue 1: Promissory EstoppelThe Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's finding that the respondent-Board was estopped by virtue of the doctrine of promissory estoppel from withdrawing the development rebate before the completion of the period of three years. The Court emphasized that the Board, being a limb of the State, is subject to the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel as it had held out a promise through notifications dated 29th October 1982, 13th July 1984, and 28th January 1986, which induced new industrialists to establish industries in Uttar Pradesh. The Court stated, 'The doctrine of promissory estoppel is by now well recognized in this country,' and held that the Board could not arbitrarily withdraw the said rebate prior to the expiry of the three years' period available to the industries concerned under these earlier notifications.Issue 2: Contractual BarThe Supreme Court overturned the High Court's conclusion that the appellants were barred from questioning the impugned notification due to the express terminology found in the agreements entered into by them with the Board. The Court scrutinized the relevant clauses of these agreements and held that the term 'rate schedule' as employed in Clause 7(b) and (c) of the agreements did not encompass the scheme of incentive development rebate. The Court stated, 'It is difficult to appreciate how the High Court could persuade itself to hold in the light of Clause 7(c) that the appellants while signing such agreements...agreed to give up their right to claim development rebate.'Issue 3: Retrospective EffectThe Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's finding that the notification dated 31st July 1986 was not retrospective. The Court clarified that the notification was purely prospective and had resulted in two consequences: (i) any new industry entering into an agreement with the Board for supply of electricity for the first time on and after 1st August 1986 could not get the benefit of incentive of 10% development rebate, and (ii) all existing new industries lost the benefit of development rebate for the unexpired period from 1st August 1986 onwards. The Court concluded, 'Both these effects of the notification of 31st July 1986 were purely prospective in character and had no retrospective effect.'Ancillary Aspects:The Court directed that for appellants who had already paid the disputed development rebate charges, the Board should credit this amount to their respective running accounts or refund it within three months. The Court also noted that no interest would be payable on the refunded amounts, stating, 'Their claim for interest, in our view, deserves to be rejected in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.'Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals (except Civil Appeal Nos. 1713 of 1991 and 3534 of 1991), set aside the common judgment of the High Court, and directed the respondent-Board to comply with the terms specified regarding the development rebate charges.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found