In Brief
A hotel company relied on a 1986 Government Order declaring tourism an "industry" and promising building tax exemption. The Government later amended the Building Tax Act in 1990 (Section 3A) to enable such exemption but failed to issue the required notification. The High Court denied relief on the ground that no formal notification was issued. The Supreme Court held the Government bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel: since the company acted on the promise by constructing the hotel, the Government's failure to issue the notification was unconscionable and arbitrary. Exemption applies for the period Section 3A was in force (1990-1993). After 1993, when the statutory power expired, no relief could be granted as it would contradict statute.", <parameter name="cited_cases">[ { "raw_citation": "M/S Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (1979) 2 SCR 641", "case_name": "M/S Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.", "cited_year": "1979", "paragraph": "12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 36", "treatment": "followed", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "Having so held, the Court then went on to hold that since the Government is bound to exempt the appellant from payment of sales tax for a period of three years w.e.f. 2nd July, 1970, being the date of commencement of the production of Vanaspati, the appellant would not be liable to pay any sales tax... It is important to notice that the necessary exemption Notification in Motilal Padampat's case had not been issued under Section 4 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. Yet, this Court held that sales tax for the period in question could not be recovered." }, { "raw_citation": "State of Punjab v. Nestle India Ltd., (2004) 6 SCC 465", "case_name": "State of Punjab v. Nestle India Ltd.", "cited_year": "2004", "paragraph": "12, 17, 18, 19, 20", "treatment": "followed", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "In fact, this Court emphasized the discretionary nature of the power to grant exemption. This Court held that the State Government's refusal to exercise its discretion to issue the necessary notification abolishing or exempting tax on milk was not reasonably exercised inasmuch as it was bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel to do so. And the finding of the High Court that such Notification would only be a ministerial act which had to be performed was, therefore, upheld by this Court." }, { "raw_citation": "Shrijee Sales Corporation & Anr. v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 398", "case_name": "Shrijee Sales Corporation & Anr. v. Union of India", "cited_year": "1997", "paragraph": "8", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "Pournami Oil Mills & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr., (1986) Supp. SCC 728", "case_name": "Pournami Oil Mills & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.", "cited_year": "1986", "paragraph": "16", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "Devi Multiplex & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2015) 9 SCC 132", "case_name": "Devi Multiplex & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.", "cited_year": "2015", "paragraph": "20", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "State of Jammu & Kashmir v. A.R. Zakki & Ors., 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 548", "case_name": "State of Jammu & Kashmir v. A.R. Zakki & Ors.", "cited_year": "1992", "paragraph": "24", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited (2011) 13 SCC 77", "case_name": "State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited", "cited_year": "2011", "paragraph": "24", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited and others v. Union of India and others, (1985) 1 SCC 641", "case_name": "Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited and others v. Union of India and others", "cited_year": "1985", "paragraph": "25, 26", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Notified Area Committee, Tulsipur, AIR 1980 SC 882", "case_name": "Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Notified Area Committee, Tulsipur", "cited_year": "1980", "paragraph": "26", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "reported" }, { "raw_citation": "Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal v. State of Maharashtra, (1981) 2 SCC 722", "case_name": "Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal v. State of Maharashtra", "cited_year": "1981", "paragraph": "26", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "reported" }, { "raw_citation": "Bates v. Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone, (1972) 1 WLR 1373", "case_name": "Bates v. Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone", "cited_year": "1972", "paragraph": "26", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "reported" }, { "raw_citation": "Kasinka Trading and another v. Union of India and another, (1995) 1 SCC 274", "case_name": "Kasinka Trading and another v. Union of India and another", "cited_year": "1995", "paragraph": "27", "treatment": "distinguished", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "This case is clearly distinguishable in that it was held (see paragraphs 22 and 27) that no incentive to set up any industry to use PVC resins had been made, and secondly, it was found necessary in public interest to rescind or withdraw such notification. On the facts of the present case, it is clear that a clear representation/promise had been made pursuant to which the State actually amended the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 by inserting Section 3A." }, { "raw_citation": "Shree Sidhbali Steels Limited and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2011) 3 SCC 193", "case_name": "Shree Sidhbali Steels Limited and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others", "cited_year": "2011", "paragraph": "29, 32, 34", "treatment": "distinguished", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "It is clear, therefore, that Shree Sidhbali Steels Limited was a case which was concerned only with whether a benefit given by a statutory notification can be withdrawn by the Government by another statutory notification in the public interest if circumstances change. Such is not the case before us. On the facts before us, a notification which ought to have been issued under Section 3A after it was introduced pursuant to a promise made was not issued at all." }, { "raw_citation": "U.P. Power Corporation Limited v. Sant Steels and Alloys (P) Ltd., (2008) 2 SCC 777", "case_name": "U.P. Power Corporation Limited v. Sant Steels and Alloys (P) Ltd.", "cited_year": "2008", "paragraph": "29", "treatment": "overruled", "treatment_by": "reported", "treatment_quote": "The larger Bench overruled the Sant Steels case stating that its view of Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act was plainly incorrect, and that Sections 14 and 21 of the General Clauses Act made it clear that a notification issued under Section 49 could be exercised from time to time, including the power to revoke such notification." }, { "raw_citation": "State of Rajasthan and another v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. and another, (2004) 7 SCC 673", "case_name": "State of Rajasthan and another v. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. and another", "cited_year": "2004", "paragraph": "30, 31, 32", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "Arvind Industries and others v. State of Gujarat and others, (1995) 6 SCC 53", "case_name": "Arvind Industries and others v. State of Gujarat and others", "cited_year": "1995", "paragraph": "30, 33", "treatment": "distinguished", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "Similarly, the Arvind Industries case is again a judgment in which it is clear that the doctrine of promissory estoppel could have no application because the appellant in that case was not able to show that any definite promise was made by or on behalf of the Government and that the appellant had acted upon such promise." }, { "raw_citation": "STO v. Shree Durga Oil Mills", "case_name": "STO v. Shree Durga Oil Mills", "cited_year": "<UNKNOWN>", "paragraph": "31", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "reported" }, { "raw_citation": "Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Ors., (2016) 4 SCC 134", "case_name": "Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Ors.", "cited_year": "2016", "paragraph": "34", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd. and another v. State of Haryana and others, (2006) 3 SCC 620", "case_name": "Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd. and another v. State of Haryana and others", "cited_year": "2006", "paragraph": "32", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "Excise Commissioner, U.P. v. Ram Kumar, (1976) 3 SCC 540", "case_name": "Excise Commissioner, U.P. v. Ram Kumar", "cited_year": "1976", "paragraph": "35, 36", "treatment": "explained", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "It will thus be seen from the decisions relied upon in the judgment that the Court could not possibly have intended to lay down an absolute proposition that there can be no promissory estoppel against the Government in the exercise of its governmental, public or executive powers. That would have been in complete contradiction of the decisions of this Court in the Indo-Afghan Agencies case, Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. case and Turner Morrison case..." }, { "raw_citation": "Indo-Afghan Agencies case", "case_name": "Indo-Afghan Agencies", "cited_year": "<UNKNOWN>", "paragraph": "13, 36", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. case", "case_name": "Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co.", "cited_year": "<UNKNOWN>", "paragraph": "36", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "Turner Morrison case", "case_name": "Turner Morrison", "cited_year": "<UNKNOWN>", "paragraph": "36", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "Emmanuel Avodeji Ajaye v. Briscoe, (1964) 3 All ER 556", "case_name": "Emmanuel Avodeji Ajaye v. Briscoe", "cited_year": "1964", "paragraph": "13", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "reported" }, { "raw_citation": "The Commonwealth of Australia v. Verwayen, 170 C.L.R. 394", "case_name": "The Commonwealth of Australia v. Verwayen", "cited_year": "<UNKNOWN>", "paragraph": "21", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P., (2002) 2 SCC 188", "case_name": "Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P.", "cited_year": "2002", "paragraph": "37", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO, (2005) 1 SCC 625", "case_name": "Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO", "cited_year": "2005", "paragraph": "37", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (1979) 1 SCC 137", "case_name": "Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab", "cited_year": "1979", "paragraph": "38", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" } ]
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.