TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (8) TMI 280
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f such sales tax incentives/exemption to a sum equal to the capital investment of each of the industrial units as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 2.. The undisputed facts are only a few. The petitioners established smallscale industrial units involving capital investments of less than Rs. 35,00,000 in each case subsequent to October 3, 1989 which was the relevant date according to G.O. Ms. No. 498 dated October 16, 1989. Admittedly, they were entitled to "tax holiday " in terms of clause 3 of the above order, though the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes has advanced a rather belated plea that most of the petitioners being oil millers, are excluded from the purview of the concessions/ incentives provided in the Governme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the District/State Level Committees. If we go by the terms of the Government order-G.O. Ms. No. 498 dated October 16, 1989, there is no scope for the latter submission, because clause 3 of the order provides that small-scale industries are entitled to sales tax holiday in all districts in the State for a period of five years subject to a ceiling of Rs. 35,00,000 on sales tax during the entire holiday period. The effect of this order is sought to be restricted to 100 per cent of the fixed capital investment by reason of clause 6-B(ii) of the "Manual of Guidelines for Implementation for New Package of Incentives/Liberalised State and Central Scheme, 1989". That provision is in the following terms: "Small-scale industries-sales tax exe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prescribing forms, time-limits, etc. 5.. After perusing the Government order with reference to the submissions raised by counsel on both sides, we are satisfied that the instructions which the Government has enabled itself to issue did not empower the State Government to restrict or forge fetters into the amplitude of the concession provided under clause 3 of sales tax concession/holiday/exemption provided in the Government order. It enabled prescription of forms and provision of time-limit and such other related procedural details and did not, expressly or by necessary implication, enable restriction of the concessions or incentives to any extent. 6.. We were referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, we do not propose to permit them to raise this plea which is contrary to their conduct. 8.. The substantial question which arises for consideration is only whether the respondents are right in cutting down the exemption/tax concession/incentives from the amount promised by clause 3 of the G.O. to the limit provided for by clause 6B(ii) of the "Manual of Guidelines issued by the State Government". 9.. It is too late in the day now to urge that the petitioners are not entitled to claim relief on the basis of equitable estoppel. A catena of decisions of the Supreme Court from Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies AIR 1968 SC 718, Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council AIR 1971 SC 1021, Turner Morri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....centive or exemption from sales tax can be granted only by issue of a notification under section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and that G.O. No. 498 issued by the Department of Commerce and Industry could not amount to a valid notification under section 9 of the Act. After the decision of the Supreme Court in Pournami Oil Mills v. State of Kerala [1987] 65 STC 1; AIR 1987 SC 590, even this submission cannot be successfully urged, because the Supreme Court has held that representation contained in a like Government order issued by an altogether different department has to be related to the power under the Sales Tax Act to grant exemption. The Supreme Court found the genesis of the power in section 10 of the Kerala General Sal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have been effected only by another notified order issued under article 166(2) of the Constitution and published in the same manner and subject to the same conditions and restrictions as provided in that article. That we understand to be the basic requirement of section 21 of the Interpretation in General Clauses Act. Such an alteration not having been effected by a notified order issued under article 166(2) of the Constitution of India, respondents are not entitled to rely upon the alteration or reduction in the eligibility of the petitioners for exemption to any amount lesser than that which was promised in clause 3 of G.O. No. 498 dated October 16, 1989. 12.. Counsel for the Commercial Taxes Department urged that the petitioners knew ....