Promissory estoppel and equality challenge fail where a fiscal concession is withdrawn by later notification.

Withdrawal of a fiscal exemption granted as a concession does not create an enforceable equity preventing the Government from rescinding the benefit by a later notification. The exemption was treated as a discretionary fiscal concession, so promissory estoppel did not bar its withdrawal. The challenge under Article 14 also failed because the later notification withdrew the benefit only from an identified class of users of branded goods and did not discriminate between persons similarly placed. The notification was therefore upheld, and the principle stated is that withdrawal of a fiscal concession from a defined class does not, by itself, violate equality or attract promissory estoppel.

---

---

Issues: Whether the withdrawal of the exemption by Notification No. 223/87 was barred by promissory estoppel and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The exemption under the earlier notification was a concession granted by the Government and not a promise creating an enforceable equity against withdrawal. The later notification merely withdrew the benefit from a class of users of branded goods and did not discriminate between persons similarly placed. The challenge based on promissory estoppel and Article 14 therefore failed.

Conclusion: The challenge was rejected and the notification was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A fiscal concession that is withdrawn by a subsequent notification does not attract promissory estoppel, and withdrawal of such concession from an identified class does not by itself offend Article 14.

---