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 amending notification withdrawing the exemption earlier granted to Potassium Chlorate under the small-scale exemption scheme was arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of promissory estoppel, and whether the Government lacked power to rescind the earlier exemption notification.
Analysis: The exemption under the earlier notification was issued in exercise of delegated power under the excise law, and the same authority was competent to modify or withdraw it. The withdrawal was justified on the ground of proliferation of small-scale units manufacturing Potassium Chlorate, revenue considerations, and the hazardous nature of the commodity. The change applied uniformly to all manufacturers of the same item, so no hostile discrimination was shown. As no representation was made that the exemption would continue for a fixed period, the doctrine of promissory estoppel could not compel the Government to retain the concession.
Conclusion: The withdrawal notification was held valid, and the challenge based on arbitrariness, discrimination, and promissory estoppel failed.
Ratio Decidendi: An exemption granted under delegated fiscal power may be withdrawn or modified in public interest, and absent a clear promise of continuance, promissory estoppel cannot prevent such withdrawal.