Sales tax exemption as a revocable concession: no vested five-year right and no promissory estoppel without proved reliance.

Sales tax exemption granted by notification was treated as a concession, not a vested right, because the first notification did not fix any immutable five-year period and the later notification operated prospectively only. The exemption could therefore be withdrawn by a subsequent notification, and the industry commissioned earlier could not claim a continuing entitlement for five years as of right. Promissory estoppel also failed because there was no clear representation of exemption for a defined period and no proof that the industry was set up in reliance on the notification. The result was that exemption survived only while the concession remained in force.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants acquired a vested right to sales tax exemption for five years under the exemption notifications; (ii) whether the appellants were entitled to continue the exemption for five years on the basis of promissory estoppel.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants acquired a vested right to sales tax exemption for five years under the exemption notifications.

Analysis: The exemption under the first notification operated as a concession and did not prescribe any fixed period. The later notification introducing a five-year period was prospective and could not govern an industry commissioned earlier. Since the State was under no legal obligation to grant the exemption, the concession remained withdrawable by a subsequent notification.

Conclusion: The appellants did not acquire a vested right to five years' exemption and could claim exemption only for the period during which the concession remained in force.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants were entitled to continue the exemption for five years on the basis of promissory estoppel.

Analysis: Promissory estoppel required a clear representation that exemption would be available for a particular period and proof that the industry was established in reliance on that representation. The material did not show that the appellants set up the industry in response to the notification so as to found a claim based on reliance.

Conclusion: The plea of promissory estoppel failed and did not prevent withdrawal of the exemption.

Final Conclusion: The exemption was held to be a revocable concession, the later notification had only prospective effect, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax exemption granted by notification is a concession and not a vested right unless the assessee proves a clear representation and detrimental reliance sufficient to attract promissory estoppel; such a concession may be prospectively withdrawn by a later notification.

---