Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J S Verma, S P Kurdukar
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS
VERSUS
GODHAWANI BROTHERS AND ANOTHER, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeal No. 597 of 1997, decided on January 31, 1997.
Promissory Estoppel - Availability of Plea of Promissory Estoppel against Issue of Notification - The court decided in favor of the assessee based on the availability of the plea of promissory estoppel to a party against the issue of a notification superseding the exemption from duty or tax granted earlier for a specified period.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, where the only question for decision was the availability of the plea of promissory estoppel to a party against the issue of a notification superseding the exemption from duty or tax granted earlier for a specified period.
Finding of the Court:
The Division Bench of the High Court decided in the assessee's favor, setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which had dismissed the assessee's writ petition.
Issues: The only question for decision before the High Court was the availability of the plea of promissory estoppel to a party against the issue of a notification superseding the exemption from duty or tax granted earlier for a specified period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the settled decision in Kasinka Trading v. Union of India, where the plea of the assessee was rejected, leading to the allowance of the appeal in this case.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court was set aside, resulting in the restoration of the judgment of the Single Bench by which the writ petition was dismissed.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 14-8-1987 in Appeal No. 687 of 1984 by which the appeal of the assessee (respondent herein) was allowed setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge which had dismissed the assessees writ petition.
3. The only question for decision before the High Court was the availability of the plea of promissory estoppel to a party against issue of a notification in exercise of the statutory powers superseding the exemption from duty or tax granted earlier for a specified period. The learned Single Judge held against the assessee but the Division Bench of the High Court decided in the assessees favour. C
4. The point is now settled by the decision of this Court in Kasinka Trading v. Union of India1 wherein such a plea of the assessee was rejected. This appeal has, therefore, to be allowed.
5. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside resulting in restoration of judgment of the Single Bench by which the writ petition was dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
