C.R.

Ramachandran Nair, J.

The connected Writ Appeals, one filed by the hotelier and the other filed by the State, arise from same judgment of learned Single Judge wherein he upheld the assessment and demand of building tax in respect of the hotel building, but waived the interest payable for belated payment of tax. While the hotelier has filed the Writ Appeal pressing for exemption, Government has filed Writ Appeal against the observation made by the learned Single Judge that the State has done a moral wrong to the hotelier and against waiver of interest granted by the learned Single Judge on this ground. We have heard Sri.George Thomas Mevada, counsel appearing for the hotelier and the Government Pleader appearing for the State and Governmental authorities.

2. The case of the hotelier is that they constructed a hotel at Munnar essentially to cater to the needs of the tourists visiting Kerala based on Ext.P1 issued by the Government of Kerala by which State Government following guidelines issued by the Central Government declared tourism as an industry and offered various incentives including exemption from building tax based on amendment to be made to the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. The conceded position is that even though Government proposed action to amend the Building Tax Act vide Ext.P1 dated 11.7.1986, amendment was made introducing a new provision, Section 3A only with effect from 6.11.1990. However, the hotelier in this case has completed construction of the hotel and commissioned the hotel project in September 1990. In other words, the amendment to the statute based on the declaration made by the Government in Ext.P1 was after the date of completion and commissioning of the hotel project by the hotelier. Strangely, the newly introduced provision, Section 3A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, which authorised the Government to grant exemption from payment of building tax in respect of buildings to be specified with reference to period of construction or class of building or the area in which the said buildings are located, remained in the statute only for a short time because Section 3A was deleted by Finance Act, 1993 with effect from 1.3.1993. It is also to be noted that no notification was issued by the Government under Section 3A during the short period during which the provision was in force in the statute. In other words, the Government's offer of incentive in the form of building tax exemption to tourism related industry remained a dead letter. The case of the hotelier as projected by his counsel is that Ext.P1 is a firm offer binding on the Government and so much so, by applying the rule of promissory estoppel the hotelier is entitled to exemption from building tax for the hotel building. The learned Single Judge following Division Bench judgment in May Flower Hotels Ltd. V. State Of Kerala reported in 2007(2) KLT 41 rejected the claim, against which Writ Appeal is filed by the hotelier.

3. Learned counsel for the hotelier contended that the Division Bench has rejected the claim because no plea of promissory estoppel was made or proved in the case decided by the court. On the other hand his contention is that the hotelier in this case started construction of the hotel after 11.7.1986 after Ext.P1 was issued and construction of the hotel itself was completed by September 1990 making the hotelier eligible for exemption from building tax in respect of the hotel building as hotel is a tourism related industry. Government Pleader on the other hand contended that rule of promissory estoppel does not apply because there was no promise as such made by the Government in as much as Ext.P1 is only a policy decision declared by the Government. We are inclined to accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader because on going through Ext.P1 it is made very clear that exemption from building tax offered by the Government will be subject to amendment to be made to the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. In or