SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Guj) 464

High Court Of Gujarat
Akil Kureshi, Sonia Gokani J.
Jaiprakash Associates Ltd -Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat –Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11278 of 2010
Decided On : Apr 15, 2011

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
K.S.Nanavati, Kamal Trivedi, Sangeeta Vishen

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 14 - Promissory estoppels - praying for quashing an Order passed by Committee for Resolution of Disputes declining request of petitioner to grant tax exemptions under scheme formulated by State Government under its Resolution - Petitioner also challenged communication of State Government rejecting such request - By way of consequential direction petitioner has prayed for a mandamus to the respondents to extend the benefit of the said Incentive Scheme of 2001, after condoning delay in commencement of commercial production by the petitioner. In the alternative, the petitioner has prayed that the date of commencement of commercial production under the Incentive Scheme of 2001 be extended - Held, - A 'promise' made by the State on the basis of which petitioner claims to have changed their position, must be an unequivocal and firm promise to attract the doctrine of promissory estoppel - A general offer by Government to provide necessary infrastructure to help in petitioners in setting up the industry is not a "firm" promise to attract promissory estoppels - Previously Scheme was extended twice - Same was general and not in individual cases - Government refused to extend benefits of Scheme in favour of petitioner, being an individual case, we do not see any reason to grant any mandamus. It is not even the case of petitioner that any individual extensions were granted by State - Petition dismissed

JUDGMENT

AKIL KURESHI

( 1. ) THE petitioner is before this Court praying for quashing an Order dated 18th May 2010 passed by the Committee for Resolution of Disputes declining the request of the petitioner to grant tax exemptions under the scheme formulated by the State Government under its Resolution dated 9th November 2001. THE petitioner has also challenged the communication dated 14th March 2011 of the State Government rejecting such a request. By way of consequential direction, the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus to the respondents to extend the benefit of the said Incentive Scheme of 2001, after condoning delay in commencement of commercial production by the petitioner. In the alternative, the petitioner has prayed that the date of commencement of commercial production under the Incentive Scheme of 2001 be extended.

( 2. ) THE petition arises in the following factual background :-

The present petitioner-Jaiprakash Associates Limited, sometime in the year 2006, had taken over one Gujarat Anjan Cement Company Limited ["GACL" for short]. The said GACL had desired to set-up a cement factory in the village Vayor in Abdassa Taluka of Kutch District in the year 1999. It appears that the said region being a backward region, there were certain sales tax benefits available even at that time to the companies setting up such industrial plants. In the year 1999, to set-up a cement factory, the GACL applied for "No Objection Certificate" as required to the Ministry of Forest and Environment ["MOEF" for short]. It is the case of the petitioner that the application dated 13th August 1999 was forwarded by the State Government to the MOEF in October 1999. It was on 23rd May 2000, the MOEF responded to the request stating that the Supreme Court has restrained the Government from permitting any mining operation around certain regions without prior order from the Court. GACL, therefore, approached the Apex Court by filing an interim application. By an Order dated 18th April 2001, the Apex Court permitted the application of GACL for NOC to be considered in accordance with law.

( 3. ) ON 26th January 2001, the State of Gujarat and in particular, Kutch District, was affected by a devastating earthquake. In order to attract investment and to re-start the industrial development which had suddenly got stalled on account of massive earthquake, the State Government vide its Order dated 9th November 2001 framed the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme [hereinafter referred to as, "the Scheme of 2001"]. To the detailed provisions of such Scheme, a reference would be made at the later stage. Suffice to note that the Scheme was brought into effect from 31st July 2001 and was to remain in force till 31st October 2004. The industrial units which commenced their commercial production latest by 31st October 2004 were to be granted certain sales tax benefits.

( 4. ) IT is the case of the petitioner that due to several reasons beyond its control, it could not set-up the factory and could not commence commercial production within the validity period of the scheme. However, the Scheme was extended by the State Government vide its Resolution dated 13th September 2004 upto 31st December 2004, and for industries which were in pipeline, the date for commencement of commercial production was extended from 31st May 2005; as envisaged in the Incentive Scheme of 2001, to 31st December 2006.

One more extension was granted the State Government vide its Resolution dated 7th January 2005. The Scheme itself was extended upto 31st December 2005 and for the pipeline industries, the deadline for commencement of commercial production was extended upto 31st December 2007.

( 5. ) IT is not in dispute that after the above mentioned Resolution dated 7th January 2005, there was no general extension provided by the State Government. In effect, therefore, the Scheme came to an end on 31st December 2005, and for the pipeline industries, the last date for commencing the commercial production en







































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top