IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, JJ.
M/s Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and Others – Respondents
CWP Nos. 4599, 9131 of 2013, CWP Nos. 24, 30, 62, 63, 64, 75, 7537 of 2014, CWP Nos. 2577, 4802 of 2015, CWP Nos. 911, 997 of 2016, CWP Nos. 101, 1547, 1548, 1549, 3237 of 2019, CWP No. 7984 of 2021, CWP No. 7320, 7335 of 2022, CWP No. 1927 of 2023
Decided On : 04-12-2023
JUDGMENT :
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.
1. All these petitions raise common questions of law and facts, hence are being taken up together for decision. For convenience, documents from CWP No. 9131 of 2013 are being referred to hereinafter.
The core question around which all these petitions are centered, is whether tax incentives granted to the petitioner-industrial units under specific Rules and statutory Notifications framed & issued pursuant to the State Industrial Policy, 2004, could be withdrawn during the currency of the exemption period promised under the Industrial Policy/ Rules/Notifications.
2. Brief reference to facts:
(i)(a) Clauses 8.1, 8.3 and 8.4 pertaining to ‘Package of Incentives, Concessions and Facilities for Industries under the 2004 Policy’ being relevant, are extracted hereinafter:
“8.1 With a view to encourage investment in our State and to offset the locational disadvantages the State Government has been implementing various Incentive Schemes in tandem with the changing needs and aspirations of Industry. Over a period of time it has been realized that fiscal incentives have invariably led to the creation of inefficient and uncompetitive industry, which has not been able to sustain itself in the long run. In addition, with changes and modifications being introduced in the taxation policy and reforms initiatives like introduction of VAT, incentives to industry need to be looked at afresh. Thus it is imperative that we move towards a policy of gradual phasing out of subsidies. Such initiatives coupled with an increased stress on the provision of quality infrastructure shall help create a conducive environment for industrial growth and attract both foreign and domestic investments.
8.3 A new set of Rules to govern incentives, concessions and facilities will be announced as a part of this Policy which will remain operative till the next Rules governing the incentives, concessions and facilities are announced or these rules amended. It is a conscious attempt of the State Government to phase out all tax-based and offer fiscal incentives (deferrals/exemptions etc.) over a period of time keeping in tune with the changing economic scenario of the country and ground realities. While doing so, efforts will, however, be made to enable existing units to avail of the incentives they are already availing for the periods they are entitled to.
8.4 In order to assure local industry with adequate back-up of Government in international markets and to encourage setting up of innovative industry based on local skills, local raw materials and employing local people, the State Government would give fiscal incentives to Companies set up and having their registered offices in H.P. for patenting their inventions and its commercialization, especially for activities such as drafting the patent application, filing the patent application In India, filing the patent application in Patent Tribunals, prosecution of the patent application outside India, maintenance fee of the granted patent application, and obtaining non-infringement opinion. Fiscal Incentive by the State Government would also be provided to such companies so as to meet with the fees charged by the private lawyers/law firms located within the country having a reference from any Ministry/Deptt. of Government of India of having successfully assisted such Companies in the country.”
(i)(b) Clause 18 of the 2004 Policy pertaining to State Taxes runs as under:
“18 State Taxes:
“18.1. Introduction of VAT at the earliest to
Barak Valley Cement Limited vs. Union of India and Others
Kasinka Trading and Another vs. Union of India and Another
Manuelsons Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. State of Kerala
M/s Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Pawan Alloys and Casting (P) Ltd. vs. U.P. State Electricity Board and Others
State of Jharkhand and Others vs. Brahmputra Metallic Ltd. and Another
The doctrine of promissory estoppel prevents the State from withdrawing tax exemptions promised under the Industrial Policy, 2004, even after the de-notification of backward areas.
The State is bound by its promises under the Industrial Policy, and failure to issue enabling notifications for incentives constitutes arbitrary action, invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
(1) Estoppel – There cannot be any estoppel against Government in exercise of its sovereign, legislative and executive functions.(2) Court cannot interfere in policy matters of Government unless such....
Point of Law : Notification cannot be construed as having retrospective or retroactive effect to whittle down the accrued rights in favour of the Respondent units which were entitled to rebate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of legitimate expectation, promissory estoppel, and Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in protecting the ....
The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot compel the government to act against statutory provisions governing entitlement to incentives.
Section 3(B)(b) of Act enables levy of electricity duty upon cancellation of exemption.
It is abundantly clear that an equitable rule by the rule of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to repeal a statutory provision – which can indeed be termed mandatory.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.