Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to exemption from entry tax for seven years on the basis of the State's promise under the industrial policy and the doctrine of promissory estoppel, despite the later notification restricting the benefit to units commencing production on or after 1 November 2004.
Analysis: The policy promised entry tax exemption for thrust-sector industries and contemplated follow-up notifications within 60 days. The respondent established its unit and commenced production in reliance on that promise, and the State itself delayed issuance of the exemption notification for more than three years. The restriction inserted by the later notification could not be used to defeat the earlier promise where the respondent had altered its position on the faith of the policy. The recognised exceptions to promissory estoppel were not attracted, and the State could not take advantage of its own delay and inaction.
Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to exemption from entry tax for seven years from 16 June 2004, and the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the State makes a clear policy promise of fiscal incentive and an industrial unit acts upon it by altering its position, the State is bound by promissory estoppel and cannot defeat the benefit by relying on a later delayed notification that narrows the promised exemption.