Industrial tariff incentives confined to new units; clarificatory amendment relates back and promissory estoppel cannot expand entitlement.

Concessional electricity charges under Himachal Pradesh's 2019 industrial policy were interpreted as applying only to new industrial enterprises, while existing units undergoing substantial expansion remained within a separate rebate regime for additional consumption. The 29.04.2022 amendment substituting "new" for "eligible" in Clause 16(a) was treated as clarificatory and retrospective to the extent it corrected the original drafting error, whereas the change limiting Clause 16(b) to three years was substantive. Promissory estoppel was rejected because the expanding unit had not been sanctioned the Clause 16(a) concession and could not use equity to obtain a double benefit not intended by the policy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether concessional electricity charges under Clause 16(a) of the Himachal Pradesh Industrial Policy, 2019, read with Rule 16(i)(a) of the 2019 Rules, were intended for existing industrial enterprises undergoing substantial expansion, and what effect the amendment notification dated 29.04.2022 had on those provisions; (ii) Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel applied in favour of the respondent company.

Issue (i): Whether concessional electricity charges under Clause 16(a) of the Himachal Pradesh Industrial Policy, 2019, read with Rule 16(i)(a) of the 2019 Rules, were intended for existing industrial enterprises undergoing substantial expansion, and what effect the amendment notification dated 29.04.2022 had on those provisions.

Analysis: The policy scheme classified eligible enterprises into new industrial enterprises and existing industrial enterprises undertaking substantial expansion. Clause 16(a) was read with the contemporaneous tariff orders and the overall structure of the policy, which showed that concessional energy charges at 15% lower rates for three years were meant for new industrial enterprises, while Clause 16(b) separately provided a rebate on additional consumption for existing units undergoing expansion. The amendment dated 29.04.2022, substituting "eligible" with "new" in Clause 16(a) and inserting "substantial expansion" in Clause 16(b), was treated as clarificatory insofar as it corrected the original drafting error and reflected the true intent of the policy. The further change limiting the duration under Clause 16(b) to three years was treated as substantive.

Conclusion: Clause 16(a) and Rule 16(i)(a) were intended only for new industrial enterprises, and the 29.04.2022 amendment was clarificatory and retrospective in that respect.

Issue (ii): Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel applied in favour of the respondent company.

Analysis: The respondent had undergone substantial expansion and received certification recognising that status, but no sanction or approval of concessional tariff benefit under Clause 16(a) had been granted in accordance with the Rules. The respondent had already received the benefit attached to its class under Clause 16(b). Promissory estoppel could not be used to create an entitlement to a benefit never intended for that class, especially where granting it would result in a double benefit contrary to the policy structure and fiscal discipline. No enforceable equity survived in the respondent's favour.

Conclusion: The doctrine of promissory estoppel did not apply in favour of the respondent company.

Final Conclusion: The policy conferred the concessional tariff benefit only on new industrial enterprises, left existing expanding units to the separate rebate mechanism, and the respondent could not claim an additional concession or rely on promissory estoppel to enlarge that entitlement.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an industrial incentive scheme distinctly separates benefits for new enterprises and existing enterprises undertaking substantial expansion, a clarificatory amendment correcting an inadvertent drafting error will relate back to the original policy, and promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to secure a benefit never intended for the claimant's category.

---