TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 918
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a cinema hall in the local area Manhapur, District Gonda. While the application of the petitioner was pending, the said G.O. dated July 18, 1989 was amended by another G.O. dated May 14, 1992 where the tax was reduced to 75 per cent for three years. By an order dated August 16, 1993, the District Magistrate, Gonda, has permitted the petitioner to construct the cinema hall known as "Inder Lok". Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for grant of license on December 13, 1994 and that too was accepted and the licence was granted on February 4, 1995. However, while considering the grant-in-aid, the District Magistrate relied upon the amended G.O. dated May 14, 1992 and instead of granting 100 per cent grant-in-aid in pursuance to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has been submitted that the delay caused because of certain defects sought to be removed by the petitioner as pointed out by the district authority. However, the attention of the court could not be invited to any material pointing out any defect in the original application moved for grant to extend the grant-in-aid in pursuance to the original circular dated July 18, 1989. A perusal of the circular dated July 18, 1989 shows that the State Government had provided grant-in-aid up to 100 per cent in the form of tax rebate who constructed the picture hall in the rural area who have applied for the same on or before April 1, 1989 and for that purpose moved the application. The submission is that the petitioner has moved the application within....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vernment order dated July 18, 1989, constructed and run the cinema hall. Subsequent Government Order dated May 4, 1992 is not applicable to the petitioner's case. We have also gone through the decision of this court passed in Writ Petition No. 369 of 1994. In the said decision the principle of promissory estoppel has not been considered at all. Admittedly, in the above case, the petitioner has applied for the fresh permission after the Government order dated May 14, 1992 and thereafter the construction was made. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable in the present case. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the petitioner was entitled for 100 per cent exemption for the first and two years in view of the Governm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to construct the new cinema building on or after July 14, 1992 and applies for grant of permission under rule 3 of the Rules on or after that date. The decisions relied upon by the learned standing counsel, have all been considered by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Alloys and Casting Pvt. Ltd., Meerut v. U.P. State Electricity Board [1997] 7 SCC 251, and after considering the same the honourable Supreme Court had laid down the above principles. 15.. It may be mentioned that the decision in the case of Pankaj Jain Agencies v. Union of India JT 1994 (5) SC 64 relied upon by the learned standing counsel is not at all concerned with the issue of promissory estoppel and has no bearing to the issues involved in the present ....