TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (6) TMI 517
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich had undertaken substantial expansion after the said date after prior approval of the Director of Industries or the authorities were entitled to the benefit of deferment of payment of the tax; Tax was not exempted but these units which fell under the scheme were permitted to take advantage of the deferment of this scheme. It is not disputed that the petitioner-company was registered under this Scheme for the grant of benefit of deferment. However, vide impugned letter dated June 24, 2009, benefit of such Scheme was withdrawn pending clarification from the headquarters. Relevant portion of the letter reads as follows:- "Kindly refer to the order of the undersigned dated May 27, 2009 with regard to issuance of deferment certificate in form S.T.-(DP)-II. After the issuance of the certificate it has been noticed that there is inconsistency in the provisions of the HPGST (Deferment Payment of Tax) Scheme, 2005 which would not be reconciled. Because of this inconsistency, the deferment certificate cannot be issued unless this inconsistency is resolved. So the reference to resolve this inconsistency has been sent to learned Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Himachal Pra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before, contain a provision empowering the State to grant such exemption. 24. The relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder indisputably were made keeping in view the industrial policy of the State. Such industrial policies by way of legislation or otherwise, subject, of course, to the provisions of the statute have been framed by several other States." The apex court went on to hold that the doctrine of promissory estoppel operates even in the legislative field. After referring to a number of authorities, the apex court held as follows (paras 37 to 43 at pages 383 and 384 in 145 STC):- "38. The promises/representations made by way of a statute, therefore, continued to operate in the field. It may be true that the appellants altered their position only from August 1996, but it has neither been denied nor disputed that during the relevant period, namely, August 1996 to December 16, 1996 not only they have invested huge amounts but also the authorities of the State sanctioned benefits, granted permissions. Parties had also taken other steps which could be taken only for the purpose of setting up of a new industrial unit. An entrepreneur wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra 15 at page 9 in 29 VST):- "26. . . .When a recognition certificate is issued, a benefit of concessional rate of tax is given to the dealer. He arranges his business affairs on those lines. Therefore, that benefit cannot be withdrawn retrospectively. Such benefit can be withdrawn, at the highest, from the date of the show-cause notice when the assessing authority proposes to delete an item from the recognition certificate. In our view, such a show-cause notice has been given in each df the cases before us. Accordingly, we construe such show-cause notice to be for amending the recognition certificate in the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly because, in some of the cases, we find that recognition certificates have been issued as far back as in 1980." Lastly Sh. Khanna has placed reliance on the judgment of the apex court in State of Haryana v. Anil Pesticides Limited [2010] 12 SCC 606 wherein again the apex court held that the benefit given to an industrial unit could not be withdrawn with retrospective effect. Relying upon these observations, Sh. Khanna submits that even if liquor is now included in the negative list, the same cannot be given retro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve list which is annexure 1 of the Scheme included items such as tobacco and tobacco products, thermal power plants, coal washeries, inorganic chemicals, tanning and dyeing extracts, marbles and minerals not mentioned elsewhere, flour mills, rice mills, foundries using coal, mineral fuels, mineral oils and products of their distillation, synthetic rubber products, cement clinker and asbestos, explosives, mineral or chemical fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides and pesticides, fibre glass, manufacture of pulp wood, branded aerated water and soft drinks, paper, plastics, products of firewood, mini steel plants, etc. The list was quite wide but if we see the list as a whole, it is obvious that the list included items which were either environmentally unfriendly or items which were harmful to health such as tobacco and tobacco products including pan masala. Even aerated drinks are in the negative list. The case of the State is that liquor was left out by inadvertence and it was never the intention of the State to give benefit of this scheme to the liquor industry and according to it, giving benefit of this scheme to the liquor industry would be against the directiv....