Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, SUSHIL KUKREJA
Kundlas Loh Udyog – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-
(i) That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No.2 to issue the enabling notification in terms of Incentives under Clause 16(a) of the Industrial Policy, 2019 w.e.f. the date of commercial production, within stipulated period qua petitioner;
(ii) That the writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing Clause 5B of the Industrial Policy 2019 alongwith Incentive Rule 4B(b) and 4F of the Rules regarding grant of Incentives, Concessions and facilities for investment promotion in Himachal Pradesh 2019 to the extent they are inconsistent with the Industrial Policy, 2019 granting incentives w.r.t. the Electricity from the date of Commercial Production qua petitioner;
(iii) That the writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the respective tariff orders for the years 2020-2021; 2021-2022 & 2022-2023 for the Large Industrial Power Supply (LIPS) to be read in consonance with the Industrial Policy of the respondent-State in this regard and to declare contrary provisions in suc
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.
Section 3(B)(b) of Act enables levy of electricity duty upon cancellation of exemption.
Arbitrary State - State is bound to act fairly, in a transparent manner in its action. This is an elementary requirement of the guarantee against arbitrary state action which Article 14 of the Consti....
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 principle of estoppel prevents authorities from withdrawing subsidies once granted, especially when businesses have acted on the original policy.
The absence of a cut-off date in the Special Mega Package allows entitlement to incentives regardless of the commercial production start date relative to the previous policy's expiry.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State Government is bound by the principle of Promissory Estoppel and cannot arbitrarily withdraw promised benefits, especially when indiv....
The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot compel the government to act against statutory provisions governing entitlement to incentives.
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
