Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 amended notifications could retrospectively deny the power tariff subsidy promised under the earlier industrial policy to a unit already set up and in commercial production, and whether the respondents were bound by promissory estoppel.
Analysis: The unit had been established and had commenced production on the basis of the incentive structure under the earlier policy, which promised power tariff subsidy to micro and small enterprises in the relevant category blocks for a specified period. The subsequent notifications curtailing the subsidy were issued after the unit had already acted upon the earlier promise. In such circumstances, the respondents could not withdraw or curtail the incentive so as to defeat benefits already accrued to units set up in reliance on the earlier policy. The later notifications could operate only prospectively.
Conclusion: The denial of subsidy on the basis of the later notifications was not sustainable, and the petitioner was entitled to the claimed power tariff subsidy.
Ratio Decidendi: An incentive promised under an industrial policy cannot be withdrawn retrospectively to the prejudice of units that have already set up and commenced production in reliance on that promise; later curtailing notifications apply only prospectively.