RAO STONE CRUSHING Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE herein in this bunch of eight petitions bearing Nos. 11682 to 11687 of 1994, 1958 and 1957 of 1995 is to notifications, annexures P-4, P-6 and order, annexure P-7. Vide notification, annexure P-4, dated September 17, 1993, in partial modification of the notification dated May 25, 1993, the Governor of Haryana was pleased to amend Sr. No. 4, of the negative list of the said notification so as to read under Sr. No. 4, "stone crushers". Vide notification, annexure P-6, dated February 11, 1994, the Governor of Haryana, in exercise of powers conferred by section 64 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1973, made the Rules further to amend the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 known as the Haryana General Sales Tax (First Amendment) Rules, 1994 and substituted Schedule III so as to read item No. 4 as "stone crushers". Vide order, annexure P-7, the General Manager, District Industries Center, Gurgaon, rejected the application of the petitioner, M/s. Rao Stone Crushing (in C.W.P. No. 11682 of 1994) which was for exemption of payment of sales tax. Notifications, annexures P-4 and P-6 as also order, annexure P-7 have been challenged on various grounds but the grounds that have actually been pressed for the desired relief are that by virtue of section 11 of the Haryana Regulation and Control of Crusher Act, 1991 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act of 1991") owners who install stone crushers within the crusher zone were granted sales tax exemption and the contrary provisions of the Sales Tax Act as also the provisions in the amendment or substitution of the negative list by including therein "stone crushers" for which sales tax cannot be exempted, stand repealed as also action of the respondents in issuing order annexure P-7, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for exemption to pay sales tax needs to be quashed on the principle known as "equitable estoppel". We, thus, purpose to dispose of all these eight petitions by this common order. Before, however, various contentions in support of the prayers contained in the writ are examined, it would be better to give factual backdrop of the events culminating into filing of these writ petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The facts have been extracted from .

(2.) M /s. Rao Stone Crushing Company is a partnership firm, of which Mr. Bhay Ram is a partner. The Government of Haryana enacted the Act of 1991 to provide for the control of location, installation or working of the crushers and their licensing in the State of Haryana. The Act of 1991 received the assent of the President of India on July 31, 1992. Section 11 of the Act of 1991 reads thus :

(3.) ON the facts, as have been detailed above, it has been so pleaded and argued by Mr. M. L. Sarin, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents are debarred by the principle of promissory estoppel from denying the benefit of exemption from sales tax as the petitioner, relying upon the representation made by the respondents as contained in section 11 of the Act of 1991 to the effect that exemption from sales tax would be granted to the owners, who install crushers within the crusher zone and obtain a licence under the Act of 1991, as admissible to various industries under the incentives scheme of the Industries Department of the Haryana State, had invested an amount of Rs. 40 lacs in setting up stone crusher after obtaining a licence under the Act of 1991 and that solemn undertaking contained in section 11 could not be with-drawn by the respondents by the impugned notification after the petitioner had altered the position to its detriment buy relying on the representation contained in the said section. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that section 11 of the Act of 1991 impliedly repeals the provisions contained in the Haryana General Sales Tax and the Rules framed thereunder as also the negative list where stone crushers cannot be exempted from payment of sales tax.