AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (4) TMI 471
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. No. 625, Revenue, dated July 31, 1996 and also directing the authorities not to collect tax on the purchases or sales made by the petitioners during the period from May 20, 1992 to May, 2001 during which period the petitioners are to repay the loan to the Khadi and Village Industries Board. 2.. The facts of the case are that the petitioners are societies registered under the Societies Registration Act comprising of artisans engaged in picking up limestones and producing lime. The 5th respondent-Chief Executive of the A.P. Khadi and Village Industries, sanctioned loans to the petitioners for setting up B-type lime units each consisting of a kiln, godown, tools and implements. According to the Schedule of repayment, the loan amounts sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... per cent, thereby making them non-viable and the same is causing much difficulty to them. Hence the writ petitions. 5.. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the action of the respondents in taking away the exemption granted is arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory. The petitioners have to pay the purchase tax and sales tax because of withdrawal of exemption granted to them. The withdrawal of exemption only in respect of lime manufacturing industries is discriminatory and violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. Further, in view of the exemption available to lime industries under G.O. Ms. No. 2566 dated June 11, 1980, the exemption available under G.O. Ms. No. 108, Revenue, dated May 20, 1996 was removed. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es to recoup the deficiency caused due to implementation of prohibition of arrack in the State and therefore the same is in public interest. In that view of the matter, the doctrine of legitimate expectation sought to be invoked was held to be of no help as it does not get attracted. It was further held that a combined reading of section 9 of the Act and section 15 of the General Clauses Act makes it clear that the power to grant exemption includes the power to rescind and, therefore, the State Government has got power to rescind the exemption granted. It was further held that even the doctrine of promissory estoppel is not applicable when the exemption is rescinded in the public interest for augmentation of financial resources of the St....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... promise pleaded by the petitioners. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 9.. The learned counsel for the petitioners next contended that article 43 of the Constitution of India provides that the State should promote village and cottage industries. The same is an obligation of the State. The directive principles of State policy are equally fundamental as that of fundamental rights. Therefore, taking away exemption granted to the petitioners will violate the fundamental right of the petitioners. 10.. Article 37 contained in Part IV of the Constitution of India provides that the provisions contained in this Part shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein laid down are ne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....licy, the said enactment cannot be questioned on the ground that it is violative of articles 14 and 19 as per article 31-C of the Constitution. The same is not the case in the present case. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that by withdrawing the impugned G.O. will violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners is not tenable. 11.. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the 2nd respondent issued G.O. Ms. No. 108, dated May 20, 1996, setting out the new industrial policy in order to accelerate the Industrial Development of the State. In the said notification, sales tax deferment limited to 13 per cent of the capital investment or sales tax exemption to the same extent has be....