Promissory estoppel cannot block retrospective withdrawal of tax deferment benefits where public policy and health interests prevail.

Promissory estoppel did not bar the State from retrospectively withdrawing deferment benefits for the liquor industry under the sales tax deferment scheme. The benefit formed part of subordinate legislation, and the court held that the doctrine cannot prevent correction of a mistaken representation where the State acts in overriding public interest. Relying on Article 47 and the State policy against encouraging liquor trade, the court found that health and public policy considerations prevailed. The omission of liquor from the negative list was treated as a mistake, and the retrospective amendment placing liquor in that list was upheld as a valid policy correction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the withdrawal of deferment benefits and retrospective inclusion of liquor industry in the negative list under the deferment scheme was invalid on the ground of promissory estoppel.

Analysis: The benefit under the scheme was part of subordinate legislation framed under the State sales tax law. The Court noted that promissory estoppel applies only where a party shows a clear change of position to its detriment on the basis of a State representation, and that the doctrine cannot prevent the State from correcting a legitimate mistake or withdrawing an that is contrary to public policy. In view of Article 47 of the Constitution of India and the State's policy against encouraging liquor trade, the Court held that public interest and health considerations prevailed over the petitioner's claim. The Court also found that the original omission of liquor from the negative list was a mistake and that the later amendment placing liquor in the negative list retrospectively was justified.

Conclusion: The retrospective withdrawal of the deferment benefit was upheld and the challenge based on promissory estoppel failed.

Final Conclusion: The petition was rejected, and the State's action in retrospectively denying deferment benefit to the liquor industry was sustained as a valid exercise of policy correction in public interest.

Ratio Decidendi: Promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to prevent the State from retrospectively correcting a mistaken subordinate legislative benefit where the withdrawal is justified by overriding public policy and public interest.

---