Sales tax remission under an expired incentive scheme did not extend to later investments, and no promissory estoppel arose.

An incentive scheme granting sales tax remission applied only to fixed capital investments made within the scheme period, so no fresh entitlement arose for investments made after expiry. The petitioner had already obtained remission on earlier qualifying investment and under a special package, but the additional fixed capital investment made later did not fall within the eligible period. Section 118(c) of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 protected only the remaining unexpired benefit under the earlier regime and did not create a new right for post-scheme investment. The discretionary relaxation power under Section 44 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 did not confer an enforceable claim, and no basis was shown for promissory estoppel or arbitrariness.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to remission of sales tax on the additional fixed capital investment of Rs. 23 crores made after the expiry of the incentive scheme, and whether the State's refusal to grant such remission was hit by promissory estoppel or arbitrariness.

Analysis: The incentive scheme operated for a fixed period and linked remission to investments in fixed capital assets made within that period. The petitioner had already been granted remission on the investment of Rs. 194 crores and had also received further benefit as a special package for investments made up to 31.03.2005. The additional investment of Rs. 23 crores was made only during 01.04.2005 to 31.12.2005, well beyond the scheme period, so no right to remission accrued in respect of that amount. Section 118(c) of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 protected only the balance unexpired period or balance eligible amount already available under the earlier regime and did not create a fresh entitlement for post-scheme investments. The discretionary power of relaxation under Section 44 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 did not confer an enforceable right to demand remission, and no material basis was shown to establish breach of promise or arbitrariness.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to remission on the Rs. 23 crores investment, and the refusal of the State was not arbitrary or contrary to promissory estoppel.

---