TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 678
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Arising out of Slp(c) No.5803 of 2006) And Civil Appeal No. 10615 of 2017, (Arising out of Slp(c) No.5835 of 2006) For the Appellant : Mr. R. Venkataramani, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, AOR Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Singh, Adv. Mr. Mojahid Karim Khan, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AOR Mr. V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Adv Mr. L. Badri Narayanan, Adv. Ms. L. Charanya, Adv. Mr. Aditya Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Victor Das, Adv. Ms. Apeksha Mehta, Adv. Mr. M. P. Devanath, AOR Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, AOR JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.5803 and 5835 of 2006. 2. The State government issued a notification bearing G.O. No. 318-GR of 1990, dated 30.11.1990, granting hundred per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitions assailing it. 5. The challenge to the notification dated 01.10.1993, by the respondents was on principles of promissory estoppel, contending that having held forth a promise for grant of exemption from CST on raw materials purchased from outside the State for five years from the date of production, the appellant could not have withdrawn or modified the benefit before that time period. 6. The Division Bench of the High Court rejected the plea of promissory estoppel. But, regarding the plea of the State change in policy on account of refunds availed fraudulently, it was held that administrative apathy, could not be a justification for putting a ceiling on the quantum of refund. The restriction sought to be introduced, had no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itrary. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondents, supporting the impugned order of the High Court, submitted that no material had been brought on record, in support of the contention regarding raising of false claims by SSI units in the State. If CST had not been paid by the dealers in the other State from whom the raw materials had been purchased, the respondents could not be visited with the consequences by denial of refund. The Division Bench had aptly observed that administrative apathy in detecting false claims could not be a justification for an across the board decision to curtail the benefit. Moreover, if false and bogus claims were an issue, and the intention was to curb it, capping the limit for exemption had no nexus with the ob....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rage entrepreneur investment. It naturally includes the power of the State to review the policy from time to time, including on considerations for the manner in which the policy was proving beneficial or detrimental to the larger public interest, and the State exchequer. The policy could therefore well be withdrawn or modified at any time for just, valid and cogent reasons. Judicial review of a policy decision, especially an economic policy decision, shall have to be restricted to the presence of just and valid reasons eschewing arbitrariness, so as not to fall foul of Article 14 of the Constitution. But, in the garb of judicial review, the Court will not examine the sufficiency or adequacy of the reasons or materials, in the manner of an a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sfied that allegations by the government about misuse being made or undue advantage being taken of the concessions given by it were reasonably well established......" 12. It is the contention of the appellants that in or about 1992, genuine doubts were entertained about the veracity of the refund claims of CST made by SSI units. A specific reference has been made by illustration to the case of the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 9844 of 2011. Enquiries were also made from the Excise and Taxation Officer II, Amritsar, as dealers at Amritsar were suspected of being in connivance with the dealers in the appellants State. It was observed on the basis of information furnished by the authorities at Amritsar that the original payee receipts prod....