Promissory estoppel against Government requires proved reliance and prejudice before customs exemption relief can be claimed.

Promissory estoppel may operate against the Government, but only where the facts establish a clear promise, reliance, and resulting prejudice. In this Calcutta HC note on customs exemptions, the petitioners said earlier notifications induced them to enter import contracts and that enforcement of later notifications should be restrained by writ. The Court found the required factual foundation was not satisfactorily shown, particularly the prejudice or sufferance needed to invoke the doctrine. The equitable principle was therefore held inapplicable on the materials presented, and writ relief on that basis was unavailable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to a writ preventing enforcement of the customs notifications on the basis of promissory estoppel and the earlier exemption period.

Analysis: The petitioners relied on prior notifications granting exemption up to a stated date and contended that they had altered their position by entering into import contracts on that basis. The Court accepted the general principle that promissory estoppel can operate against the Government, but held that its application depends on the facts established in the case. On the materials placed before it, the Court found that the petitioners had not satisfactorily demonstrated the prejudice or sufferance necessary to invoke the doctrine and obtain writ relief. The principles relied on were therefore held inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to the relief sought on the basis of promissory estoppel.

---