Tax remission entitlement cannot be extended by later expansion or certification where the original incentive period was already exhausted.

An industrial unit that had already enjoyed the original seven-year tax exemption or remission under the Meghalaya industrial incentive framework could not claim a fresh remission period under the later 2006 scheme merely because it expanded or obtained a later eligibility certificate. The later remission scheme was treated as providing alternative benefits without authorising a second full cycle of incentive, and the later certificates could not enlarge the original entitlement. Promissory estoppel was also unavailable because the approval and certificates did not amount to an enforceable promise of a further remission period, and the assessing authority remained competent to levy tax under the applicable sales tax and VAT laws. The writ petitions therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an industrial unit that had already enjoyed the initial seven-year tax exemption or remission under the Meghalaya Industrial Policy, 1997 and the Meghalaya Industries (Sales Tax Exemption) Scheme, 2001 could claim a fresh period of tax remission under the Meghalaya Industries (Tax Remission) Scheme, 2006 on the basis of subsequent expansion and a later eligibility certificate; (ii) whether the impugned assessment orders and demand notices were liable to be interfered with on the basis of promissory estoppel or lack of authority in the assessing officer.

Issue (i): whether an industrial unit that had already enjoyed the initial seven-year tax exemption or remission under the Meghalaya Industrial Policy, 1997 and the Meghalaya Industries (Sales Tax Exemption) Scheme, 2001 could claim a fresh period of tax remission under the Meghalaya Industries (Tax Remission) Scheme, 2006 on the basis of subsequent expansion and a later eligibility certificate.

Analysis: The relevant policy and scheme framework treated the petitioners as eligible industrial units because they had commenced commercial production before the new regime and had already received the incentives attached to the initial eligibility certificate. The later remission scheme was framed to give alternative benefits without breaking the VAT chain, not to confer a second full cycle of remission after the original seven-year benefit had run its course. The scheme and policy materials did not disclose any provision creating a fresh entitlement merely because the units had expanded or modernised. The later eligibility certificates could not enlarge the original period of entitlement beyond the seven years already availed.

Conclusion: The claim for a fresh or extended period of tax remission was rejected and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the impugned assessment orders and demand notices were liable to be interfered with on the basis of promissory estoppel or lack of authority in the assessing officer.

Analysis: The approval granted through the single-window mechanism and the later industrial certificates did not amount to an enforceable promise that the petitioners would receive a second round of remission under the later scheme. The doctrine of promissory estoppel was therefore not attracted. The assessing authority acted within the taxing framework in levying and assessing liability under the applicable sales tax and value added tax laws, and the industrial bodies issuing eligibility certificates were not the authorities empowered to determine tax liability or extend remission contrary to the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment orders and demand notices failed and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were not sustainable because the petitioners had already exhausted the original incentive period and could not secure a second remission period on the strength of expansion or later certification.

Ratio Decidendi: A later eligibility certificate or expansion of an industrial unit does not create a fresh entitlement to tax remission where the governing policy and scheme provide only the original period of incentive and do not authorise a second grant of the same benefit.

---