Industrial incentive scheme created an enforceable reimbursement promise, and technical defects or delay did not defeat relief.

A published industrial incentive scheme with detailed eligibility, period, formula, ceiling and verification terms was treated as an enforceable promise to reimburse commodity taxes, and the State could not rely on the absence of a Finance Department notification to defeat that entitlement where no overriding public interest was shown. The court also treated verification and countersignature objections as curable technical defects, and held that delay in filing did not extinguish the substantive claim. Relief was therefore moulded by directing processing and payment of admissible reimbursement, with interest adjusted to reflect the lateness.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the industrial incentive scheme created an enforceable entitlement to reimbursement of commodity taxes despite the absence of a notification by the Finance Department; and (ii) whether delay and technical defects in the reimbursement claims defeated the petitioner's entitlement to relief.

Issue (i): whether the industrial incentive scheme created an enforceable entitlement to reimbursement of commodity taxes despite the absence of a notification by the Finance Department.

Analysis: The scheme was found to be a detailed and published incentive policy designed to attract new investment and to extend specified tax reimbursements to eligible units commencing commercial production within the stipulated period. Clause 9 set out the eligibility, period, formula, ceiling, verification and tax-related adjustments with sufficient specificity, showing that the promise was not tentative or incomplete. The absence of a subsequent notification was treated as a failure of implementation and not as a valid basis to withdraw the promise, particularly when no public interest or other justification for non-issuance was shown. In these circumstances, the doctrine of promissory estoppel applied against the State.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to claim reimbursement under the scheme, and the State could not avoid its obligation merely because the notification was not issued.

Issue (ii): whether delay and technical defects in the reimbursement claims defeated the petitioner's entitlement to relief.

Analysis: The objections regarding verification and countersignature were treated as curable technical defects. Although the petition was filed after considerable delay, that circumstance did not extinguish the substantive entitlement; instead, it justified moulding the relief by restricting interest for the earlier period and granting simple interest only from the filing of the petition onward. The claims were therefore directed to be processed and paid to the extent found admissible.

Conclusion: The technical objections and delay did not defeat relief, though the remedy was adjusted to account for lateness.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded in substance and the respondents were directed to process and pay the admissible reimbursement claims under the incentive scheme, with interest modified in view of the delay.

Ratio Decidendi: A published and detailed governmental incentive scheme intended to induce industrial investment can create an enforceable promise, and the State cannot defeat that promise by relying only on non-issuance of an implementing notification when no overriding public interest is shown.

---