Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the industrial policy resolution by itself created an enforceable promise preventing withdrawal of sales tax exemption, and whether exemption granted under the sales tax statute could be withdrawn in public interest.
Analysis: The industrial policy resolution did not itself grant a tax exemption; it only indicated that departmental orders would be issued for administering concessions. Exemption from sale or purchase tax could be granted only through notification under Section 6 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, and that provision expressly empowered the State to withdraw or modify any exemption notification. The assessee, therefore, could not found a plea of promissory estoppel against a statutory power that was liable to be altered in public interest. The State's plea of financial stringency and resource crunch constituted a supervening public interest justifying change of policy and restriction of the earlier exemption notifications.
Conclusion: The plea of promissory estoppel failed, and the withdrawal or restriction of exemption notifications was valid. The appeal succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: No promissory estoppel can operate against an express statutory power to withdraw or modify tax exemption notifications, especially where the Government acts on grounds of overriding public interest.