Administrative tax circulars cannot bind quasi-judicial adjudication; promissory estoppel plea remains open before authorities.

Section 37B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was construed as valid only to the extent that it authorises administrative directions, not instructions that control the independent adjudication of quasi-judicial authorities. Circulars issued under it cannot compel adjudicating officers to decide contrary to the Act. The petitioner was also not granted writ relief directing implementation of exemption circulars on promissory estoppel, though that plea was left open for consideration before the departmental authorities. The writ petitions were dismissed overall, with the authorities expected to examine the objections on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 37B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 empowering the Board to issue directions on classification was ultra vires and unconstitutional, and whether circulars issued thereunder could bind quasi-judicial authorities; (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled to a writ directing implementation of the exemption circulars on the basis of promissory estoppel.

Issue (i): Whether Section 37B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 empowering the Board to issue directions on classification was ultra vires and unconstitutional, and whether circulars issued thereunder could bind quasi-judicial authorities.

Analysis: The provision was read down to preserve its validity by confining its operation to administrative directions that do not control the independent decision-making of quasi-judicial authorities. Directions issued under the provision cannot override the statutory function of adjudicating officers, and circulars cannot compel a quasi-judicial authority to decide contrary to the Act.

Conclusion: Section 37B was held valid, but circulars issued under it were not binding on quasi-judicial authorities in the exercise of their adjudicatory powers.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to a writ directing implementation of the exemption circulars on the basis of promissory estoppel.

Analysis: The petitioner was left free to raise the plea of promissory estoppel before the departmental authorities. A writ of mandamus was not considered necessary at that stage, and the authorities were expected to consider the objections on merits.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not granted writ relief directing implementation of the circulars, though the plea of promissory estoppel was left open before the authorities.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed overall, while leaving the petitioner to pursue its substantive objections, including promissory estoppel, before the competent authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory provision conferring administrative power must be construed so as not to control or impair the independent adjudicatory function of quasi-judicial authorities, and administrative circulars cannot bind such authorities beyond the statute.

---