Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
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 Government was bound by promissory or equitable estoppel to continue the cash assistance scheme for walnut exporters after withdrawing it, and whether the withdrawal could be invalidated on the facts of the case.
Analysis: The doctrine of promissory estoppel was recognised as a principle that may enforce governmental assurances where a party has altered its position to its detriment. However, its application against the State was held to be narrower when the State acts in its governmental, public or sovereign capacity. The Court held that the Government cannot be made a prisoner of its policy where public interest requires a change, and the doctrine will apply only to prevent fraud or manifest injustice. On the facts, the scheme was intended to offset likely losses in an unfavourable market, but the rise in international walnut prices removed that basis. The petitioners failed to establish actual loss, and the asserted prejudice was no more than loss of additional profit. The withdrawal was not arbitrary and was made after notice.
Conclusion: The doctrine of promissory or equitable estoppel did not bar the Government from withdrawing the scheme in the circumstances, and the challenge to the withdrawal failed.