Promissory estoppel can enforce an industrial policy assurance and support relief without a formal statutory notification.
A governmental industrial policy assurance promising five years' exemption from electricity duty was treated as enforceable under promissory estoppel where an industrial unit altered its position by installing a new generating set within the relevant period. The court accepted that the assurance influenced the decision to generate power in-house, and held that consequential relief could be granted by quashing the rejection order and demand notices without first directing the State to issue a notification under the Electricity Duty Act. The relief was consistent with the assurance and no legal bar was shown.
Issues: (i) Whether the respondent could invoke promissory estoppel on the basis of the State government's industrial policy assurance to claim exemption from electricity duty for the relevant five-year period. (ii) Whether relief could be granted by quashing the rejection order and demand notices without directing the State to issue a notification under the Electricity Duty Act.
Issue (i): Whether the respondent could invoke promissory estoppel on the basis of the State government's industrial policy assurance to claim exemption from electricity duty for the relevant five-year period.
Analysis: The assurance of 1 August 1961 promised exemption from electricity duty for five years to industrialists generating their own power through new generating sets installed during the Third Plan period. The respondent's plant went into production on 16 February 1965 and the generating set was new and installed within the relevant period. The High Court's finding that the respondent's final decision to install its own power plant was influenced by the assurance was a possible view on the evidence and did not call for interference. The doctrine of promissory estoppel was therefore attracted.
Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to rely on promissory estoppel and claim exemption from electricity duty for the stipulated five-year period.
Issue (ii): Whether relief could be granted by quashing the rejection order and demand notices without directing the State to issue a notification under the Electricity Duty Act.
Analysis: The relief granted by the High Court did not compel the State to issue a notification under the Electricity Duty Act. It only quashed the rejection order and the demand notices and left the Government to take its own course consistent with the assurance. No transgression of the Act or any other law was shown.
Conclusion: Relief could be granted in that form, and no legal bar prevented the High Court from doing so.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the High Court's grant of relief in favour of the respondent was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: A clear governmental assurance inducing a party to alter its position can be enforced through promissory estoppel, and the court may grant consequential relief consistent with that assurance without requiring a formal statutory notification.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
