TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 214
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... arises in this writ appeal from the judgment of the single judge dated March 23, 2011 allowing Writ Petition (T)-6057 of 2008 filed by the respondent. The facts 2. The State of Chhattisgarh was formed after carving out an area from the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh on November 1, 2000. It was a backward area; though highly rich in natural resources and had large untapped potential for industrialisation. 3. In order to initiate economic and social growth, the State came out with a policy on January 25, 2002 for the years 2001-06 (the 2001-06 Policy). It gave various benefits to the industries setting up in the State. 4. According to the respondent, • It set up its factory in Raipur and started its commercial pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment for the year 2004-05. 10. The writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed by the single judge on March 23, 2011 on the ground of promissory estoppel holding that the respondent is entitled to exemption from payment of entry tax and assessment was quashed. Hence, the present writ appeal by the State Government and its officials. The decision 11. We have heard counsel for the parties. 2001-06 Policy 12. It is not disputed between the parties that:- • The 2001-06 Policy was issued by the State Government after approval by the Cabinet and was binding upon all the Departments and its officers; • The 2001-06 Policy was never withdrawn and some benefits to the newly set up industrial units includ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eral based industry" as envisaged under the 2001-06 Policy. The fact that the respondent is a medium scale industry is admitted. Benefits under the 2001-06 Policy 19. Clause 3.4 of the 2001-06 Policy is titled as "Directed Incentives". It provides number of incentives available to the industries. Under this clause, apart from other benefits, the thrust sector was entitled to exemption of electricity duty for a period of 10 years and exemption of entry tax, the details of which were to be issued separately. 20. Clause 4.0 of the 2001-06 Policy is titled as "Implementation and monitoring". It provides that all concerned Departments and institutions shall issue follow-up notifications to give effect to the provisions of this Policy wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ced production after November 1, 2004, then it would have got exemption irrespective of the fact whether it was set up in pursuance of the 2001-06 Policy or the 2004-09 Policy. 24. In view of the above, it is not relevant under which policy the notification was issued. The relevant thing is whether the respondent could claim exemption of entry tax on the principle of "promissory estoppel or not". 25. The respondent set up its industrial unit in pursuance of the promise given by the State that there will be exemption in entry tax and notification will be issued in 60 days. The State has been negligent. There was slackness as well as lethargy on the part of the State. It did not issue the notification within 60 days under the 2001-06 Po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ursuance of the promise made by the State Government. 28. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine, [3Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1979] 44 STC 42 (SC); AIR 1979 SC 621 (622); [1979] 2 SCC 409.] and as such it is subject to the limitations to which all equitable rights and obligations are subject. [3Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1979] 44 STC 42 (SC); AIR 1979 SC 621 (622); [1979] 2 SCC 409.]On the same page, Basu's Shorter Constitution of India explains them as follows:- "(a) It would be open for the Government or public authority to show that the officer or agent who made the representation acted beyond the scope of his authority and the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ingh AIR 1982 SC 1234 (para 3); [1982] 2 SCC 365.]. (f) He who seeks equity must do equity. Hence the doctrine cannot be invoked where it is found to be inequitable or unjust to enforce it. (g) The representation must be clear and unambiguous, and not tentative or uncertain [Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 2414 (paras 18, 24-27); [1988] 1 SCC 86.]." 29. It is admitted that the aforesaid exceptions do not apply in this case. The only objection for not giving the benefit to the respondent is that it did not start commercial production after November 1, 2004 as envisaged in the notification. 30. The respondent has set up its own industrial unit in pursuance of the promise given by the State Governme....