TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1648
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....substantive reliefs:- "(a) To declare Notification No. EXN-F(1) 2/2004 dated 30.03.2005 (Annexure P-11) illegal and invalid to the extent of its retrospectivity and applicability to the industrial units in the pipe line and had actually started commercial production subsequently. (b) Issue an appropriate writ, quashing orders and demand notice dated 06.06.2008 passed by Respondent No. 5 (Annexure P-1) whereby liability of Rs. 7,92,095/- for the year 2006-07 and Rs. 30,98,215/- for 2007-08 were raised and deferment incentive was declined and orders dated 21.04.2010 passed by Respondent No. 4 (Annexure P-2) sustaining orders dated 06.06.2008 and also sustained imposition of penalty and interest as per orders dated 28.06.2011 (Annexure....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent specified in sub para (1) shall be reckoned from the date of commencement of commercial production or the date of notification of this scheme whichever is later." 4. The State Government on the expiry of the aforesaid notification further issued another notification on 30.03.2005 (Annexure P-11), whereby it granted the benefit of deferred payment of entire tax for a period of 5 years to units in 'A' category area and 8 years for units in 'B' category area. However, as per entry 22 of Annexure - 1, Mini Steel Plants induction/ Arc/ Submerged furnaces and/or rolling mills were placed in the negative list, thereby dis-entitling the manufacturer of the aforesaid goods for the deferred payment of tax. Admittedly, the petitioner is engaged i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uge amount that too when the unit had not been included in the negative list, it was entitled to deferred payment of tax on the basis of principle of promissory estoppel. 7. The respondents have filed the reply wherein it is stated that the unit of the petitioner is situated in industrial developing area and commenced production only w.e.f. 23.07.2006 and was thus not entitled to benefit of the Notification dated 23.07.1999 as the same was operative only for 5 years up to 23.07.2004, when the unit of the petitioner was not even born. 8. It is further averred that vide notification dated 30.03.2005, the condition of eligibility for availing facility for making deferred payment of sales tax have been enumerated in para 3, relevant portion w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, manufacturing the goods which fall in the negative list, therefore, it is not entitled for the benefit of deferred payment of tax. 12. The petitioner has relied upon the following authorities in support of his plea of principle of promissory estoppel:- 1. Lloyd Electric and Engineering Limited vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (2015) 52 PHT 83 (SC) (FB 2. Mahabir Vegetable Oils Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and others (2009) 24 VST 99 (P&H) 3. M.R.F. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sales Tax and others (2006) 148 STC 225 (SC) 4. Mahabir Vegetable Oils Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. State of Haryana and others (2006) 145 STC 350 (SC) 5. State of Bihar and others vs. Suprabhat Steel Ltd. and others (1999) 112 STC 258....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lied upon the promise or representation held out, and altered its position relying upon such assurance 15. However, the moot question is whether the principle of promissory estoppel is applicable to the facts of the instant case. 16. Admittedly, the notification dated 23.7.1999, remained in force fully for a period of 5 years, whereby the deferred payment of sales tax was available to the units relating to Mini Steel Plants induction / Arc / Submerged furnaces and / or rolling mills, only available up till 23.07.2004. After 23.7.2004, the notification ceased to exist and it is only vide notification dated 30.3.2005, that the scheme for making deferred payment of tax was extended to the 'A' & 'B' category areas, but as the unit of the peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner had taken no steps whatsoever for setting up its industrial unit during the currency of the notification dated 23.7.1999, which remained operative up till 5 years i.e. 23.7.2004 and whatever steps were taken to set-up the industry including the registration with the Industry Department was taken after 23.07.2004 i.e. after the scheme has come to an end. All the other effective steps for setting up the industrial unit were taken by the petitioner when the notification dated 30.3.2005 had been issued. However, since the goods manufactured by the petitioner fell within the negative list, it was not entitled to the benefit of the Scheme. 21. Therefore, in the given facts of the case, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is clearly not attra....