LUCKY STEEL INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner firm seeks a declaration that it is entitled to get the sales tax incentive benefits as per the resolution dated 27/08/1980, at Annexure `A' to the petition, and a direction on the respondents to grant the incentive benefits forthwith to the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that the impugned resolution dated 15/01/1987, at Annexure `H' to the petition, is unconstitutional to the extent that it gives effect to the resolution from 1 5/01/1985, and a direction is sought that the impugned resolution dated 15/01/1987 should be made applicable with effect from 18/03/1982.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not granted the benefit of deferment of sales tax incentive though promised under the resolution dated 27/08/1980. According to the petitioner, it set up an industry in the backward area of Vartej, relying on the promises held out by the respondent government under various resolutions offering package benefits like cash subsidy, sales tax exemption and sales tax deferment with a view to attract new entrepreneurs for setting up new projects in the notified backward areas. According to the petitioner, it had acted upon such promises and altered its position with a hope and temptation to get the package incentive benefits. The petitioner has invoked doctrine of promissory estoppel against denial of the benefits to the petitioner.

(3.) When the resolution dated 27/08/1980 announcing policy of incentive was issued by the Government, rolling or re-rolling mills were not enumerated in the list of industries not eligible to get the benefits. However, by a subsequent resolution dated 7/ 12/01/1982, the list of ineligible industries came to be amended, as per which, `re-rolling of steel including stainless steel' was added at item 24 of the list. The case of the petitioner is that it was running a rolling mill manufacturing products from steel scrap only and did not fall in entry 24 which referred to re-rolling mill, and not a rolling mill. In the alternative, the petitioner's case is that, since the petitioner was rolling or re-rolling only steel scrap and not `steel' or `stainless steel', it's industry was outside the purview of entry 24 of the ineligibility list. It is pointed out that whenever steel scrap is to be included, it is specifically mentioned, as was done in entry 21 `re-rolling of steel and steel scraps including stainless steel' of the list of ineligible industries annexed to the resolution of 19/08/1983 under which capital investment subsidy scheme was declared. Thus, according to the petitioner, it's industry was not included in the list of industries which were not eligible to get the sales tax incentive benefits.