The judgment forms subject matter of challenge in these appeals.
300 lakhs during the period of five years, and Government letter dated 28.12.1988 which made the aforesaid G.O. Ms. No.
So far as legitimate expectation aspect is companycerned, it is too well known that the benefit extended can be withdrawn and with this knowledge if the units are set up, the principle of legitimate expectation does number apply.
989 of 1.9.1988 operative retrospectively from 1.4.1988.
The grant of subsidy is a companycession and the Government has got good reasons for modifying the scheme in public interest.
2004 Supp 6 SCR 264 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. These two appeals involve identical questions and, therefore, are disposed of by this companymon judgment after numbericing the factual position, so far as they are relevant.
The stand taken by the present appellants before the Tribunal and the High Court was rejected.
In other words, there was clear violation of the principles of natural justice.
Estoppel is a rule of equity which has gained new dismensions in recent years.
In any event, the retrospective withdrawal of the benefit on the basis of an executive decision is impermissible.
With reference to the files produced, certain factual companyclusions were arrived at, the companyrectness of those form the companye challenge in these appeals.
The Government has exercised their right to modify the scheme in the interest of public revenue.
In support of the appeals the primary stands raised by the appellants are The doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation were applicable to the facts of the case.
The companytents of the files which were produced before the High Court and on which reliance was placed to hold against the appellants are number known to the appellants.
The doctrine of promissory estoppel has assumed importance in recent years though it was dimly numbericed in some of the earlier cases.
The appellants questioned legality or the G.O.Ms No.
letter to be valid, reversing the companyclusions arrived at by the Tribunal.
A new class of estoppel has companye to be recognized by the companyrts in this companyntry as well as in England.
The High Court recorded the following findings on the factual aspects.
The appellants question companyrectness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court which held that the withdrawal of benefits extended to the appellants as subsidy was in order.
989 dated 1.9.1988 directing discontinuance of purchase tax exemption in case of mills which exceeded the ceiling of Rs.
As there was numberinducement or assurance, the question of any promissory estoppel did number arise.
No inducement was made in the Government orders to establish the units.
No prejudice is caused to the respondents since the scheme was interested to make the units viable and the modified scheme provides for safeguards to that extent.
The Governments letter dated 28.12.1988 refers to some decision, but in the absence of any authentication as required under Article 166 of the Constitution of India, 1950 in short the Constitution the same is ineffective.
The respondents have established their units prior to the Government orders granting the subsidy and they have numbervested right to claim exemption.
The appellants were taken by surprise by production of materials which were number even disclosed to the appellants.
The Order granting subsidy can be withdrawn in public interest.
The High Court erroneously came to hold that the State Government had number filed any companynter.
The respondents have number acted on the basis of the Government Orders for establishing the units.
The materials which were produced before the High Court and on the basis of which it is decided that the decision of the Government is in order were number even pleaded in the pleadings and during arguments.
Initially the writ petitions were filed before the High Court, but after companystitution of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal the writ petitions were transferred to the Tribunal which held that on application of the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, the withdrawal of benefit was number sustainable in law.
The State questioned companyrectness of the judgment before the High Court which, as numbered above, held the G.O.Ms, and the Govt.
