SUNRISE BISCUITS CO LTD Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE material facts and the chronology of events, which have led to the present writ petition and which are not seriously in dispute, may, in brief, be set out as follows :

(2.) THOUGH the Department of Industries, Govt. of Assam, has been made respondent No. 1 in the writ petition, this respondent has not filed any affidavit and has not contested the writ petition. The writ petition has been resisted by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Department of Finance and Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, respectively by filing a joint affidavit-in-opposition, the case of the respondents being, in brief, thus : Because of the nature of the activities indulged in by certain industrial units, which were covered under the Section of 1995, it became necessary to enlist them as non-eligible units, the petitioner Company's said industrial unit being one of such non-eligible units. In accordance with the need, which so arose, the amendments to the Scheme of 1995 have been introduced by bringing into effect, vide notification, dated 05. 11. 99, the amended Scheme of 1999. The amended Scheme of 1999 is completely valid inasmuch as the amendments are within the powers of the respondents/authorities concerned, as envisaged under Sub-Section (4) of Section 9 of the AGST Act, 1993. Since the petitioner Company's said industrial until sells products not in its own brand name, it is, in terms of the amended Scheme of 1999, not eligible to receive concessions under the Industrial Policy of 1991 or under the Scheme of 1995. A Government's policy cannot override the provisions of law and so long as necessary notification in terms of the provisions of the relevant statute is not issued, no benefit can be enjoyed by any industrial unit. That apart, the levy of the sales tax is by way of legislative enactment and, therefore, no exemption of sales tax can be granted except in the manner laid down in the said enactment. Section 9 (4) of the AGST Act, 1993, lays down the manner and method of granting of relief of exemption of sales tax to any class of industries by Notification in the official Gazette and no executive order can override the requirements of the statute. Since the amended Scheme of 1999, issued under S. 9 (4) of the AGST Act, 1993, disqualified an industrial unit, which does not sell its product in its own brand name, the petitioner Company no loner remains eligible to receive the benefits of the Scheme of 1995. Since the amended Scheme of 1999 has been issued in exercise of powers under Sub-Section (4) of Section 9 of the AGST Act, 1993, the same is legal and valid. The doctrine of Promissory Estoppel is not attracted in the present case inasmuch as the appropriate authority for appropriate reasons decided not to extend the benefits of the said Industrial Policy of 1991 to, amongst others, an industrial unit, which does not sell its products in its own brand name. So long as the requisite Notification under the AGST Act, 1993, is not issued, no legal or equitable right can be said to have accrued to the petitioner Company. Moreover, no relief, based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, should be granted, when grant of such relief is likely to harm larger public interest. Since the State Government, in exercise of its statutory power, has decided to withdraw and/or not to grant exemptions from payment of sales tax to a particular class of industries on the ground of public policy, the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be pressed into service to thwart such exercise of powers by the Government.

(3.) I have heard Dr. AK Saraf, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner Company, and Mr. D. Saikia, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents.