JUDGMENT :

S.B. SHUKRE, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

2. The facts of this Petition appear on quite a narrow canvass. Suffice it to say, for the purposes of this Petition that the Petitioner-a registered Company dealing in manufacture of Vegetable Oil and Allied Oil products, fired by the enthusiasm created by the Government scheme intending to have industries at disperse places all over Maharashtra under ‘New Package Scheme of Incentives, 1993’ (for short ‘Incentive Scheme’) set up a factory unit at village Dabha, Tahil Nandgaon Khandeshwar, District Amravati with the hope that the incentives offered under the Incentive Scheme would offset the increased cost of production and the Petitioner would be able to compete with other similar industries in marketing its products at affordable rates, without causing any loss to the Petitioner- Company.

3. Under the Incentive Scheme, monetary and other incentives in the nature of tax subsidy or tax exemption at the rates prescribed in the scheme and other benefits were given. The document of Incentive Scheme required that the Eligibility Certificate be issued by the Implementing Agency and invariably the Implementing Agency would be the concerned District Industries Centre headed by an officer of the rank of General Manager.

4. The Petitioner made an application for issuance of the Eligibility Certificate by the District Industries Center, Amravati. The Petitioner was found eligible for getting the certificate, and therefore, by the final order issued on 20th March 2017, the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Amravati issued the Eligibility Certificate which was valid for nine years. Under the Incentive Scheme, the date from which the Eligibility Certificate shall take effect for availing of the sales tax incentives was to be specified by the Commissioner of Sales Tax.

5. In the instant case, the Eligibility Certificate reached the table of the Commissioner of Sales Tax for specifying the date from which the incentives to be given to the Petitioner were to take effect. The Commissioner of Sales Tax prescribed the effective date, but, while doing so, curtailed the validity period by about three years by his order passed on 10th August 2017. The Petitioner has taken an exception to such curtailment of the validity period by filing this Petition. The Petitioner has also raised another grievance in this Petition. He submits that incentives given in the Incentive Scheme have been substantially reduced by new policy prescribing new tax structure of the State and according to him, this violates principle of promissory estoppel.

6. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the curtailment of validity period is not permissible under the Incentive Scheme. It is also his submission that, even if new tax structure has come into being it would have no adverse impact on the monitory incentives given under the Incentive Scheme by virtue of the Application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The law consistently laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court right from the case of M/s. Motiram Padampat Sugar Mills Company Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (1979) 2 SCC 409, reiterated in the case of Gujarat State Financial Corporation vs. M/s. Lotus Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (1983) 3 SCC 379, would demonstrate it, submits learned Counsel.

7. Mr. Dharmadhikari, the learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 submits that even if there is any change in the tax structure, the Petitioner would not be entitled to receive the original tax benefits as provided under the Incentive Scheme of 1993 and whatever benefits that might be conferred upon the Petitioner would be made available only in terms of Government Resolution recently issued on 12th June 2018 and also the other instructions that have been issued so far or would be issued from time to time. He points out that under the new tax structure which has a centralized system of Sales Tax un