TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (4) TMI 523
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....factured by them for sale within the State of Rajasthan in the manner and to the extent and for the period as specified in that notification. The operative period of the scheme under that notification was from March 5, 1987 to March 31, 1992. It was subsequently extended to March 31, 1997. The incentive scheme was applicable, inter alia, to new industrial units set up in areas mentioned in annexure A to the notification. Annexure B sets out a list of industries which were not eligible for the benefit of the said notification. Oil extraction or manufacture was not listed in appendix B. Hence this industry was eligible for benefits under the scheme of May 23, 1987. 3.. By another notification dated May 23, 1987, issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act the State Government notified another sales tax incentive scheme for industries exempting (inter alia) new industrial units from payment of Central sales tax on the inter-State sale of goods manufactured by them within the State of Rajasthan. Under this notification also it was provided that industries listed in appendix B would not be eligible for the benefit of the scheme. Oil extraction or manufacture was not listed i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ification dated July 26, 1991, the benefit of exemption from Central sales tax was restored to oil extracting and manufacturing industry to the extent of 75 per cent in the case of new industries and to the extent of 60 per cent in the case of industries going for expansion or diversification. Thus new industrial units established after May 7, 1990 and before July 26, 1991, alone were not entitled to the benefit of the incentive scheme under the Central Sales Tax Act in respect of inter-State sales of their goods. 7.. The respondents commenced commercial production on February 17, 1991. Prior thereto, on April 2, 1991, they applied for an eligibility certificate. The appellants sent a reply dated April 29, 1991, pointing out that they were not eligible for the benefit of the incentive schemes since the benefit of the said schemes had been withdrawn with effect from May 7, 1990, in respect of their industry. The application of the respondents was finally rejected on November 30, 1991. The respondents thereupon filed Writ Petition No. 2529 of 1992 before the High Court challenging the two notifications of May 7, 1990, issued under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 and the Central Sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t judgment in respect of the said notification issued under the Central Sales Tax Act. The respondents in those appeals stated that they were not pressing their challenge to the notification of May 7, 1990 issued under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. This Court, therefore, by the impugned judgment set aside the order of the High Court and upheld the validity of the notification of May 7, 1990, issued under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. However, it also held that prior to April 4, 1994, which was the date when this Court stayed the judgment of the division Bench under challenge, any benefit availed of under the High Court judgment could be retained by the said industry. 10.. In the present case, the appeal before the division Bench was decided on August 14, 1995. The attention of the Division Bench does not appear to have been drawn to the decision of this Court in Gopal Oil Mills [1999] 115 STC 25. The division Bench dismissed the appeal of the State of Rajasthan, the present appellants, on the ground that the respondent-industry had started its production much before March 31, 1992, relying on the earlier judgment See [1993] 89 STC 277 (Raj) (Lokendra Industries v. State)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emption from Central sales tax from oil industries for the short period May 7, 1990 to July 26, 1991. In the case of the notification of May 7, 1990, under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, no subsequent notification has been issued to restore the benefit of the scheme to oil extraction industries. The ratio, therefore, on the basis of which the notification of May 7, 1990, under the Central Sales Tax Act was set aside, is not available while considering the notification of May 7, 1990 under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. 13.. The appellant, State of Rajasthan, contends that it is open to it in public interest to withdraw any concessions which it may have granted to oil extraction industries under the incentive scheme. In fact, the scheme itself provides in clause 8 that the scheme can be reviewed or amended from time to time during the subsistence of the scheme. The respondents, however, contend that by framing the said incentive scheme the State of Rajasthan had held out a promise that the benefit of the scheme would be available for all new industries set up during the period March 5, 1987 to March 31, 1992. Relying upon this promise the respondents had taken all effective steps to se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of new units was much less, and the tax liability on the old units was high, old units gradually started closing down while new units started coming up. As a result, in the two years 1988 and 1989, 64 old units were closed down and 74 new units were started. The closure of old units and their replacement by new units resulted in blocking of capital and funds invested in the old units. Therefore, in effect, the incentive scheme as operating for oil industries was resulting in closure of existing units and substitution of the same by new units-which was never the intention of the incentive scheme. It was, therefore, decided to withdraw the benefit of the scheme in public interest in respect of oil industry. The notification of May 7, 1990, therefore, was clearly issued on account of a supervening public interest. 17.. Secondly, in the present case the respondents do not seem to have taken steps which can be considered as effective steps for starting a new unit prior to the notification of May 7, 1990, thereby entitling them to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The respondents rely upon the following for the purpose of invoking promissory estoppel: 1.. The respondent-firm ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....les Tax Act, 1954. 19.. The respondents, however, contend that they were granted a certificate of eligibility in respect of both Central and State Sales Tax Schemes on January 6, 1993. They have enjoyed the benefit of exemption from the State sales tax as well as the Central sales tax throughout as a result of the said certificate. Their unit has now closed down with effect from July 31, 1997. In view of the exemption granted by the appellant to the respondents under both the schemes, the respondents have not collected sales tax in respect of any of the transactions covered by the two incentive schemes. Hence, now they should not be asked to pay any amount by way of State sales tax on the transactions of sale within the State during the period commencing from January 6, 1993 (the date of grant of eligibility certificate). 20.. The respondents also rely upon a circular dated January 27, 1994, issued by the Directorate of Industries, Rajasthan, Jaipur. This circular states that it is being issued in view of the Rajasthan High Court's decision in the case of Goverdhan Oil Mills [D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) (Ref.) No. 354 of 1992 decided on March 4, 1993-printed at page 43 infra] and ....